America's one-eyed view of war - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:37 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstone
They didnt choose crap... so please quite with the hypocritical and sanctimonious BS. They never choose to be occupied in the first place, they were in fact EVICTED in 1967.

Lets get some facts straight here... the British Mandate was illegal in the first place. Lets not also forget that the mandate for a Israel nation in Palestine was made by a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory, who at the time happen to be Palestinean.

In 1948, at the moment that Israel declared itself a state, it legally owned a little more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine...After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.

Thus when the partition plan was announced in 1947 it included land held illegally by Jews, which was incorporated as a fait accompli inside the borders of the Jewish state. And after Israel announced its statehood, an impressive series of laws legally assimilated huge tracts of Arab land (whose proprietors had become refugees, and were pronounced 'absentee landlords' in order to expropriate their lands and prevent their return under any circumstances).

Lets also not forget that the Palestineans did not declare war in 1948 against the Israeli's and took no part in that war, but yet they were EVICTED from there homelands by Israel. The Palestineans had no weapons or armies to defend itself with as the British had already destroyed any such ability by them to resist. The British Mandate only allowed the Israelis to be armed, which was a major objection by the Palestineans.

Gandhi said it best...

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs...As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." --- Mahatma Gandhi
The Palestinians should have read more Gandhi.
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:40 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
rstone's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
And I am saying that they negotiated in good faith to end the situation, and were rebuffed by the Palestinians. In the end, it was the Palestinians who chose war.
They negotiated to keep land that they took illegally, and maintain military occupatipation. I'm sure you would feel the same way if lets say China invaded the US, took are land then decided to keep some for itself for its efforts, keep Washintong DC, and split the remaining of your new state into 3 seperate areas which borders are controlled by the Chinese, and still occupy many of the natural resources. Also anyone in those areas would continue to be under military occupation.

"Protecting the Constitution vs Presidental powers is not about terrorism, but of doing what is right vs. what is easy. I choose doing right... where do you stand?"
rstone is offline  
post #23 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:42 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Hamas was certainly was no improvement, it was a change from dishonest murderers to honest murderers.
In a way it is an improvement, at least in regard to the elimination of ambiguous responsibility.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #24 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:52 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstone
They negotiated to keep land that they took illegally, and maintain military occupatipation. I'm sure you would feel the same way if lets say China invaded the US, took are land then decided to keep some for itself for its efforts, keep Washintong DC, and split the remaining of your new state into 3 seperate areas which borders are controlled by the Chinese, and still occupy many of the natural resources. Also anyone in those areas would continue to be under military occupation.
The Palestinians had no nation. They were split up among the Jordanians and Egyptians. As far as I know, no state of "Palestine" has ever existed, except as a Roman province. Millions of Jews lived in Palestine at the end of World War II. They have lived in those lands for a long time. The real crime is that no Arab nation was established at the time of Israel's creation, which was the original promise of the Balfor Declaration. I have never seen the sense of a separate Palestinian state, it simply plays along with the Western Powers desire to keep the Arab people divided and broke while they steal their oil. Palestinians should be part of a greater, democratic Arab state on the line of Turkey, until this happens, peace will never come. The United States and Britain have a security and a historic humanitarian interest in protecting the Jewish state, too bad they didn't see they had the same for the Arabs.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #25 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
In a way it is an improvement, at least in regard to the elimination of ambiguous responsibility.
Just when the PLO had a chance to mellow out with the death of Arafat, the utterly stupid Palestinian people vote in Hamas. What it did for me is convince me the problem lays with the Palestinian people at large, not their leaders. They think they can destroy Israel. They want to destroy Israel. They are the stupidest, dumbest people on earth, too dumb to realize the Israelis will die for their country, which is what makes a real nation.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #26 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:59 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
But it is their leaders, and the Palestinian people are the primary victims of bang-the-drum fear-mongering. You've seen what that can do first hand. Think of the impact in the face of real danger.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #27 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 10:01 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
rstone's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
The Israeli actions in which civilians have been deliberately targeted, are indefensible. These are not isolated incidents or aberrations or mistakes; they do not simply represent occasional instances of "poor judgment or lax discipline"; they are not inadvertent.

An Israeli journalist conducted a lengthy interview with an Israeli sharpshooter in November 2000. They discussed the permissible age of Palestinian targets. To which he replied, "Twelve and up is allowed. He's not a child any more, he's already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that. Thirteen is bar mitzvah age. Twelve and up, you're allowed to shoot. That's what they tell us."

Another American reporter described the following incident in Gaza in June 2001: "It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker. 'Come on, dogs,' the voice booms in Arabic. 'Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!' I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: 'Son of a bitch!' 'Son of a whore!' 'Your mother's cunt!' The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos. Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered--death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo--but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."

These are the people you defend... these 700 killings up to a year ago, and the nearly 2000 up to the present, cannot possibly all have been inadvertent, and they were clearly not all a response to Palestinian terrorism.

"Protecting the Constitution vs Presidental powers is not about terrorism, but of doing what is right vs. what is easy. I choose doing right... where do you stand?"
rstone is offline  
post #28 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 10:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
rstone, you've got to find a better point to argue from. The Palestinians kill Israeli kids with nail bombs, and you think you can make a valid argument of moral superiority by saying Israelis shoot Palestinian kids. It doesn't work. In the end, you just typify the endless violence of the Middle East with this endless circular logic. If the Palestinians had accepted Israel's peace deal, and then the Israelis had shot those kids, you'd have a point, but that is not what happened. Some nut in your community, egged on by your leaders, strapped a bomb on and walked onto a busload of school children and killed them. If it was me, I'd shoot your fucking kids too. That's how war works. Try peace, you might get different results. Read up on non-violence, it freed millions in India and America, maybe it would work for you. Until it does, your people are just another gang of murdering scumbags in the Middle East. The Israelies are murdering scumbags too, but at least they are democratic murdering scumbags, so I'll side with them.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #29 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 10:11 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
rstone's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
The Palestinians had no nation. They were split up among the Jordanians and Egyptians. As far as I know, no state of "Palestine" has ever existed, except as a Roman province.
Wrong... maybe you should study your history more.

3,000 BC – Canaanites were the People of Palestine
2,500 BC – Canaanites around Jerusalem. Jerusalem established by Jebusites a Canaanite tribe.
1842 BC – First mention of Jerusalem discovered in a text
1,700 – 1,500 BC – The rulers of Egypt called Hyksos invade Jerusalem.
1,350 BC – First mention of Jerusalem as a city state discovered in an Egyptian letter called the Tel Amarna letter.
1,200 – A people from Greece called the Philistines occupy the Land of Canaan and most probably Jerusalem and ruled it for only 40 years.
1,200 – 1,020 – Jebusites rule the city of Jerusalem.
1,020 BC – Prophet Daud/David [as] fought a battle with the Philistines, destroyed them and established the Ancient Israel.
965 BC – Prophet Sulayman/Soloman [as] succeeds Daud [as] as the King of Israel. 922 BC – After Sulayman’s [as] death the Kingdom of Israel was split. Judea with Jerusalem as its capital and Israel destroyed by Babyloniaons.
926 BC – Egyptian forces occupy Jerusalem. However, the house of David was allowed to flourish under Egyptian rule!
701 BC – Assyrians capture Jerusalem and make the whole of Judea a tributary state.
587 BC – Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon destroys Jerusalem including Sulayman’s [as] Temple. All Jews are either killed, exiled or taken prisoners.

The is it is clear that Jerusalem was originally not a Jewish city, but of Canaanites.

The first occurrence of the name of Jerusalem comes from the Canaanite period of 1842 BC which carries a North Semitic name, meaning "the city founded by the god Salem."

Around 1,200 – 1,020 BC, Jerusalem was inhabited by the Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe, and the culture of the city was Canaanite. The Jebusites built a fortress, "Zion", in Jerusalem. Zion is a Canaanite word meaning "hill" or "height." Jerusalem was also known as Jebus. Canaanite society flourished for thousands of years. Many aspects of Canaanite culture and religion were later borrowed by the Hebrews.

According to a number of historians and scholars, many of the Arabs of Jerusalem today, indeed the majority of Palestinian Arabs, are descendants of the ancient Jebusites and Canaanites.

The land we call Israel today, onced belonged to the Palestinian Arabs.

Their is little basis in fact to state that Israel has always been owned by the Jews. While it is true that King David, from 1020 BC to 965 BC and King Soloman from 965 BC to 922 BC did rule this land, it was short lived. In 926BC the Egyptians captured Jerusalem and allowed the house of David to to flourish until 587 BC when the King of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and all Jews were either killed, exiled or taken prisoner.

Jews are actually not even the modern descendents of the Israel of the Biblical Old Testament:

According to both the early-20th-century popular historian H.G.Wells and the Hungarian-Jewish intellectual and author Arthur Koestler, amongst numerous others, the people known today as Jews are primarily the descendents of a Turkish tribe known as the Khazars. The Khazars have no historical connection to Palestine. They converted to Judaism between 620 and 740AD, and have no genetic connection to biblical Israel, and hence to the narratives of the Bible and the "Holy Land". In other words — virtually all of the Jews of the modern world have no Hebrew ancestry, and no ancient connection with Palestine.

The fact still remain that the Israel would not exist had it not been for the British mandate.

"Protecting the Constitution vs Presidental powers is not about terrorism, but of doing what is right vs. what is easy. I choose doing right... where do you stand?"
rstone is offline  
post #30 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 10:14 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Let me add my piece of history: 1945, Allies win World War II, get to do whatever they want with whatever is left of the world that the communists didn't take. You lose.
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    'President Bush's war, not America's war' firstmb Off-Topic 0 11-28-2005 11:28 PM
    Anti-Iraq War Soldiers form PAC, begin airing new ad against the War FeelTheLove Off-Topic 8 10-15-2004 12:02 PM
    America's 50/50 stance Cap n Carageous Off-Topic 20 10-15-2004 06:47 AM
    Tomorrow, will it be war or not? War means new SLK sales will trickle. kls 023 R170 SLK-Class 13 03-17-2003 11:17 AM
    Survey: How do you view this forum -- Table view? Thread view? Sort by? RLO R170 SLK-Class 4 06-04-2002 08:28 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome