By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Hamas legalizes Crucifixion

Comrade Tovya said:

 

Please don't mince my words, you knew good an well what I was saying.  Israel existed long before the Arabs left the deserts of modern day Saudi Arabia... history goes further back than just the 20th century.  Your idea that modern history dictates the annals of time is just wrong. 

Now I will break down your comments...

A) The British did NOT promote Jewish immigration into British Palestine, and history has actually shown that they even tried to stop it.  When they exhausted their time and resources trying to prevent fighting between Jews and Arabs, they made the decision to surrender their rights to Palestine to the UN to decide it's fate.

The UN via resolution 181 decided that the survivors of the holocaust needed a homeland of their own, and split the former British Mandate into two states--and Arab one, and a Jewish one.  The Jews were fine with the decision, and the Arabs of greater Pan-Arabia were not. 

Therefore, the Arab nation mounted a joint war against the Jews, and were thoroughly defeated.  Israel gained land not out of naked aggression, but in a war of defense.  And according to international law, land obtained in a defensive war is legally able to be retained.

B) Jews didn't leave Arab nations out of the backlash of anger by Arabs, they were expelled from those nations, and their properties were seized.  That's racism my friend.  So you may want to keep off of the subject of racism, because the Arabs were the worst proponents of gross anti-Judaic racism.   At least the Jews gave equal citizenship to the Arabs that remained within Israel's borders... and as I've stated before, are able to and currently do hold public office in the Israeli government.  No Jew is or has been given that same right under modern Islamic rule.  So like I said, yor better off not speaking the word racism in this discussion, because it's one subject that gives greater pan-Arabia a black eye.

C) They didn't leave just because of the Stern Gang & Irgun.  The Arabs had their own militias as well, and both groups took shots at each other and the British.  Like I previously stated, and is historically proven, the British were tired of policing the violence between the two groups.  Your revisionist history might make you feel good inside by pretending that the Arabs were these saintly people in the middle of the desert, but the actual history of Palestine & Israel proves differently.

I don't mind if we disagree, that's completely okay.  But if the reason for this thread is to revise history and paint the Jews as these "evil masterminds of domination", then it's a pointless thread.  As I previously stated, I do not think Israel is a flawless nation without failures.  I am honest enough to admit that Israel has commited folly before.

Yet, on your part, you completely paint everything about Israel as being racist, illegal, and inhumane... but as for the Arabs, you paint them as these flawless victims who have done no wrong to the Jews.  Really, give me a break.  The Jews aren't perfect, but I can assure you that the Arabs screwed up big time by making war against them in 1948, 1967, & 1973. They lost these wars, and Israel gained it's territory in defensive wars, which as I previously stated, allows a nation to retain captured territory according to international law.

I love how the pro-Arab camp likes to quote UN resolutions and international law when they think it paints Israel as an illegal entity, but when other resolutions condemn the Arab world or whenever they are guilty of breaking international law, they mock the UN as an illegitimate Zionist organization.

The whole idea that withdrawing to the "greenline" would solve all of the problems is bogus.  That was the line prior to the start of 1967 war, and the Arabs didn't want peace then... the fact that there is a Jewish nation in the middle of greater-Arabia is the only reason that the Arabs need to make war on Israel.  And that is the reason for the slogan "Palestine: From the River to the Sea" that Palestinians like to throw up so often.  The Arabs will never make peace until they have driven the Jews into the sea.

 

 

A & B) Are you kidding me? Are actually claiming that Israel was split in two because it one existed over 1500 years ago? lol. Fact is prior to WWII Jewish population was at best 15%. There were more Christians than Jews at that time. They had zero entitlement to the land.

Muslims/Arabs didn't push them out orignally, in fact prior to this whole issue, Jews had better living conditions in Muslim lands than anywhere else.

It was a racist move to try to make up for another racist moves in Europe and Russia. Jews in the Arab world prior to WII had absolutely no part in Zionism. It was a purely Eurpean Jewish move because of the conditions they were having to put up with. In fact Palestine wasn't even their first choice. They also considered places like Philadelphia as a homeland vs actual state and places in Africa as well. It wasn't until the WW's when they start pushing for a return to ancient Israel.

C) True both sides took attacks to eachother. The problem is, much like today, the Jews had European weapons and military skills since most came from European armies. Whereas the Arabs were largly farmers with absolutely no military knowledge and aged Ottoman/Turkish weapons. The Jewish terrorist orgs were far more devastating and I don't recall any mention of Arab attacks on British. They concentrated on Jewish centers. Whereas the Stern Gang and Irgun largly attacked both. They knew they could handle the Arabs without British opposition so they wanted the British out.

I am not being one sided here, I'm just leveling the view you are trying to present. I have never said Arabs are without massive sins of their own. They did and do many things wrong all the time. I whole heartly dislike Hamas' military actions as they are purely anti-Islamic. However, I also whole heartly dislike Israeli actions and occupation of Arab lands. I fully understand that if the Arabs agreed to peace in 1948 or prior to 1967 then things would hopefully be different.

But, that was almost 40 years ago. Nearly the entire world says Israel should withdrawl. Nearly every single Arab/Muslim nation offered FULL RELATIONS AND PEACE if they withdraw. Israel should just do what's right. Take that offer as a strong starting point, have discussions with not only a PA rep, but also reps from the biggest Arab nations. Agree on a removal for right to return and slight modifications to the green line, but offer a lot of compensation and assistance to rebuild Palestine into a stable country. But, they won't. Why? because like the Palestinians have Hamas as a roadblock the Israelis have settlers.

 



Around the Network

And Israel routinely murders Palestinian children and women. Why are there no articles on that?





Comrade Tovya said:
Final-Fan said:
superchunk said:
Final-Fan said:
1.  I never said you did. 

I don't see how that kind of silliness helps their position.  Why would it shoot them in the foot?  Why don't they just show maps with them having all the green line stuff you say they should have, instead of laying claim to the whole of Israel?  It's sheer madness to think they'll get any more than that, isn't it?  So there would be nothing lost by conceding it.

2.  But they have physically increased in size, i.e. expanded the geographical area of the settlements?
1. Its a matter of recognition and principle. Much of it is about appearances.

2. Yes, they have. Where do you think to 200,000+ settlers from Gaza moved to? Do you think a sane person that is peace loving would want to live in the middle of Gaza with millions of people who hate you? No, these are some of the most radical die hard Israelis. That's why they had to bring in Israeli military and physically remove them. However, nearly all just moved into new homes on expaneded territory in WB settlements.

1.  But what I'm saying is that the appearance of backing down from claiming ALL of Israel for Palestine is not conceding anything that isn't completely insane not to concede.  What principle is involved in that insane claim? 

2.  So it was indeed expanded territory, as opposed to just adding to the population in already settled areas but not expanding the settled area? 

 

Actually, one of my best friends lived in Gush Katif, and they got moved into mobile homes within recognized Israel and not the territories as claimed.  The leaders of Israel treated the Gush Katif evacuees very poorly after the fact.  Many of them still have not received the aid that was promised to them by the government.

lol, you are so biased.

Source 1

exerpt:

year............. WB................. Gaza........ Jerusalem..... Golan Heights... Total

2003 -
 224,669 7,556
178,601 16,791 427,617
2004 -
234,487 7,826 181,587 17,265 441,828
2005 -
258,988 0 184,057 17,793 460,838

As you can see even as the ~7800 Gazan settles were removed the other areas gained for a total net gain of almost 20,000 peole. Populations as well as land area was increased and has been increasing even when Israel agreed to hald all expansions during Clinton's years.

Source 2

Source 3 (Israeli)

"...there are proportionately 22% more criminal files in Judea and Samaria than in Israel proper." Wonder why they have such an increase in criminal activity?

Source 4

This one talks about more than just current populations and land changes. Even touches on violence.

Source 5

*** You can now search for more. Google is your friend.

One thing that is funny a very large portion of Israeli citizens also want them removed. I can search for that too if you wish.

Source 6

That is just one poll, but I have read numerous times similar polls. The percentages are much higher for Israelis not living in settlements.



superchunk said:
Comrade Tovya said:
Final-Fan said:
superchunk said:
Final-Fan said:
1.  I never said you did. 

I don't see how that kind of silliness helps their position.  Why would it shoot them in the foot?  Why don't they just show maps with them having all the green line stuff you say they should have, instead of laying claim to the whole of Israel?  It's sheer madness to think they'll get any more than that, isn't it?  So there would be nothing lost by conceding it.

2.  But they have physically increased in size, i.e. expanded the geographical area of the settlements?
1. Its a matter of recognition and principle. Much of it is about appearances.

2. Yes, they have. Where do you think to 200,000+ settlers from Gaza moved to? Do you think a sane person that is peace loving would want to live in the middle of Gaza with millions of people who hate you? No, these are some of the most radical die hard Israelis. That's why they had to bring in Israeli military and physically remove them. However, nearly all just moved into new homes on expaneded territory in WB settlements.

1.  But what I'm saying is that the appearance of backing down from claiming ALL of Israel for Palestine is not conceding anything that isn't completely insane not to concede.  What principle is involved in that insane claim? 

2.  So it was indeed expanded territory, as opposed to just adding to the population in already settled areas but not expanding the settled area? 

 

Actually, one of my best friends lived in Gush Katif, and they got moved into mobile homes within recognized Israel and not the territories as claimed.  The leaders of Israel treated the Gush Katif evacuees very poorly after the fact.  Many of them still have not received the aid that was promised to them by the government.

lol, you are so biased.

Source 1

exerpt:

year............. WB................. Gaza........ Jerusalem..... Golan Heights... Total

2003 -
 224,669 7,556
178,601 16,791 427,617
2004 -
234,487 7,826 181,587 17,265 441,828
2005 -
258,988 0 184,057 17,793 460,838

As you can see even as the ~7800 Gazan settles were removed the other areas gained for a total net gain of almost 20,000 peole. Populations as well as land area was increased and has been increasing even when Israel agreed to hald all expansions during Clinton's years.

Source 2

Source 3 (Israeli)

"...there are proportionately 22% more criminal files in Judea and Samaria than in Israel proper." Wonder why they have such an increase in criminal activity?

Source 4

This one talks about more than just current populations and land changes. Even touches on violence.

Source 5

*** You can now search for more. Google is your friend.

One thing that is funny a very large portion of Israeli citizens also want them removed. I can search for that too if you wish.

Source 6

That is just one poll, but I have read numerous times similar polls. The percentages are much higher for Israelis not living in settlements.

 

You are right, I am biased, but so are you, so what is your point?

You have absolutely no clue as to where the Jews of Gush Katif ended up... thus far, every friend I've mentioned in my posts (whether they be Jews or Palestinians) are liars according to you.  Be honest, what do you know about my friends that you'd have the chutzpah to call them liars?  That makes you look foolish, not I.

Secondly, how many Jews that lived in Gush Katif do you know?  Did you march in the orange march?  No, you didn't, but I did.  Therefore, please stop telling me that I know nothing when I was there for the expulsion and you weren't.  I might be crazy for thinking so, but I'm pretty sure I know where my friends live better than you... If you have some kind of inside news on my friends whereabouts, please share, I'm all ears.

Otherwise, you just look foolish calling people that you don't even know liars...



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431

XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya

Around the Network
Comrade Tovya said:

 

You are right, I am biased, but so are you, so what is your point?

You have absolutely no clue as to where the Jews of Gush Katif ended up... thus far, every friend I've mentioned in my posts (whether they be Jews or Palestinians) are liars according to you.  Be honest, what do you know about my friends that you'd have the chutzpah to call them liars?  That makes you look foolish, not I.

Secondly, how many Jews that lived in Gush Katif do you know?  Did you march in the orange march?  No, you didn't, but I did.  Therefore, please stop telling me that I know nothing when I was there for the expulsion and you weren't.  I might be crazy for thinking so, but I'm pretty sure I know where my friends live better than you... If you have some kind of inside news on my friends whereabouts, please share, I'm all ears.

Otherwise, you just look foolish calling people that you don't even know liars...

 

1. The only person I've called a liar, indirectly, was you.

2. I have no clue *exactly* where all your so called friends ended up. What I did prove in the post you quoted is that even when Gaza was closed down (<8,000 people), the other settlements grew (~20,000 people). So I would logically assume that the greater majority of the people from Gaza ended up in other settlements in WB, or would you rather me call them Judea and Samaria.

As was the case in my Israeli-Palestinian conflict course, 400 level University class taught by a former US Ambassador to Egypt (no he was not Arab or Muslim), even with factual primary evidence the two Israeli girls in the class wouldn't accept the simple truths. Israel is not the victim nor are they always on the defense from the hordes of Arab terrorists. They have always been as much the instigator as the Arabs. Difference is they always had better weapons and more, better trained fighters.



superchunk said:
Comrade Tovya said:

 

You are right, I am biased, but so are you, so what is your point?

You have absolutely no clue as to where the Jews of Gush Katif ended up... thus far, every friend I've mentioned in my posts (whether they be Jews or Palestinians) are liars according to you.  Be honest, what do you know about my friends that you'd have the chutzpah to call them liars?  That makes you look foolish, not I.

Secondly, how many Jews that lived in Gush Katif do you know?  Did you march in the orange march?  No, you didn't, but I did.  Therefore, please stop telling me that I know nothing when I was there for the expulsion and you weren't.  I might be crazy for thinking so, but I'm pretty sure I know where my friends live better than you... If you have some kind of inside news on my friends whereabouts, please share, I'm all ears.

Otherwise, you just look foolish calling people that you don't even know liars...

 

1. The only person I've called a liar, indirectly, was you.

2. I have no clue *exactly* where all your so called friends ended up. What I did prove in the post you quoted is that even when Gaza was closed down (<8,000 people), the other settlements grew (~20,000 people). So I would logically assume that the greater majority of the people from Gaza ended up in other settlements in WB, or would you rather me call them Judea and Samaria.

As was the case in my Israeli-Palestinian conflict course, 400 level University class taught by a former US Ambassador to Egypt (no he was not Arab or Muslim), even with factual primary evidence the two Israeli girls in the class wouldn't accept the simple truths. Israel is not the victim nor are they always on the defense from the hordes of Arab terrorists. They have always been as much the instigator as the Arabs. Difference is they always had better weapons and more, better trained fighters.

 

A) Fine, you don't know me either, so I hardly think you are the one to judge my honesty.  I don't agree with your opinions, but I won't call you a liar because I don't know you personally... and I don't judge people based simply upon differing opinions.  So maybe you should take a look in the mirror and judge yourself rather than a total stranger.

B) Right, so you are making an assumption by looking at numbers as to where the settlers ended up.  I'm not angry with you because you assumed wrong.  My original post in this matter wasn't even directed at you, I was talking to someone else.  I think you are just acting like a child by sitting behind a computer screen picking fights because you don't have to see that person face-to-face.

My point is, I have no problem talking with you, not even when we are in disagreement.  I believe in the democratic idea that people don't always have to agree to take part in the same discussion.  But if you are going to cry "liar" everytime someone offers up a different opinion, then what is the point of this conversation?  Maybe you are lying to me?  I don't know, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you are probably being sincere in what you say.  I'm just asking for the same respect, that's all.

 



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431

XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya

Comrade Tovya said:

 

A) Fine, you don't know me either, so I hardly think you are the one to judge my honesty.  I don't agree with your opinions, but I won't call you a liar because I don't know you personally... and I don't judge people based simply upon differing opinions.  So maybe you should take a look in the mirror and judge yourself rather than a total stranger.

B) Right, so you are making an assumption by looking at numbers as to where the settlers ended up.  I'm not angry with you because you assumed wrong.  My original post in this matter wasn't even directed at you, I was talking to someone else.  I think you are just acting like a child by sitting behind a computer screen picking fights because you don't have to see that person face-to-face.

My point is, I have no problem talking with you, not even when we are in disagreement.  I believe in the democratic idea that people don't always have to agree to take part in the same discussion.  But if you are going to cry "liar" everytime someone offers up a different opinion, then what is the point of this conversation?  Maybe you are lying to me?  I don't know, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you are probably being sincere in what you say.  I'm just asking for the same respect, that's all.

 

A) I indirectly called you a liar because I called shenanigans on your original story that even another poster thought was far fetched. From there we have spiraled through many other topics on the overall issue. However, don't try to take the high ground now, you have numerous times called me a racist-pig among other English and Hebrew names. Also, for the record I am not afraid of confrontation, I would have called you out in public if you mentioned the same story in front of me.

However, I doubt you would have so quickly jumped into name calling.

B) I gave you many sources for my claim. I think those support themselves without further recourse.

I also am quite comfortable going over these details, but, just look back at our posts. I don't think one has gone by where you have not derailed the discussion by attacking my character and tried to make this a personal issue. In fact most of your talks have been similar to the "When did you last beat your wife?" strategy. Problem is I just ignored the childish attacks and continued on topic.

Also, I didn't deny that there are families in Palestine that fit your story. As I said before, your original post was more of a generalization trying to propugate the myth that all Palestinians (Arabs by association) train their kids to kill and plan for them to be martyrs. Its just idiotic and grossly untrue.

 



superchunk said:
I don't think one has gone by where you have not derailed the discussion by attacking my character and tried to make this a personal issue. In fact most of your talks have been similar to the "When did you last beat your wife?" strategy. Problem is I just ignored the childish attacks and continued on topic.

1.  Gross exaggeration.  Also, you've done most or all of the things he's done.  You started this by calling him a liar, and in his response he called you biased, but also responded to all the points of your post.  Both of you have called each other liars and biased. 

2.  I don't recall any instance of that type of thing; give examples.  IMO either you're completely wrong or misidentifying the behavior.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:
superchunk said:
I don't think one has gone by where you have not derailed the discussion by attacking my character and tried to make this a personal issue. In fact most of your talks have been similar to the "When did you last beat your wife?" strategy. Problem is I just ignored the childish attacks and continued on topic.

1.  Gross exaggeration.  Also, you've done most or all of the things he's done.  You started this by calling him a liar, and in his response he called you biased, but also responded to all the points of your post.  Both of you have called each other liars and biased. 

2.  I don't recall any instance of that type of thing; give examples.  IMO either you're completely wrong or misidentifying the behavior.

 

Actually, I don't think he's a liar... I have no doubt in his sincerity (like I said before, I don't personally know they guy, so far be it from me to question the honesty of his character).  But I did call him biased, but I also admit that I am biased as well.  In any given discussion, just about anyone is biased towards one opinion or another.  There's nothing wrong with holding an opinion, and that goes for him as well.  I have no problem with him being a polar opposite with me in beliefs.  But calling me a liar is just silly, because I am just repeating what someone else told me.  Maybe they are lying?  Who knows?  I trust both the Palestinian and Jewish friends that I quoted, so I assume after growing up my entire life with them that they are being honest with me.  Could I be wrong in trusting them?  Absolutely, but as a good friend, I believe them because they've given me no reason not to before.

I also have a Palestinian friend (Abdul, the guy I mentioned before) who detests Israel.  Despite the fact we don't agree on politics has never kept Abdul and I from being close friends.  I've saved his ass more times than I can count, and he's done the same for me more times than he can count. 

But it does make me wonder, does he think Abdul is a liar when he says that Israel is the aggressor nation, and the Palestinians have done no wrong?  Or does he only think that this Muslim is honest because he takes the same position as himself?

What I mean is, just because someone's idea of the truth is the opposite of your own doesn't make that person a liar, it simply makes them a person with a different opinion than yourself... or, maybe that's just my naive view of the world?



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431

XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya