No money

by **Darknut** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:47 pm

Story

What were they thinking when they elected these guys for their government? They should have known that the west would have pulled its support given how the west views hamas.

by **Gen. Ouch** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:15 pm

and yet the US and europe are still giving aid to the people who elected them. hamas knew expactly what they were doing when they forced the election.

by **SavageParrot** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:33 pm

Ah yes the old 'we want you to be democratic just so long as you democratically decide to do what we want you to do' line...

I think if I had israeli tanks indescriminately fring into the ghetto I'd been forced to live in since israeli settlers stole my house I'd think about voting for hamas as well. Not that if I were Israeli i would think those tanks were a bad idea, I don't know what I'd be thinking.

I guess what I am saying is it's easy to decide what is and isn't acceptable when you are sitting down to a nice big meal in a nice peacful neighbourhood in a nice peaceful country where all you have to worry about is whether you should go for the 30 inch or the 40 inch plasma screen for your new tv.

Instead of complaining about the decision after it had been made the world in general but the US in particular should have stopped patting Israel on the head and hoping that the palestinains would have the 'good sense' to elect us world view friendly officials.

*incidentally, nah this isn't politics

by **Darknut** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:47 pm

Perhaps Israel wouldn't be attacking the PA if the PA wasn't constantly attacking them or if they would hold up their end of the ceasefire. It has been quite a while since Israel took any land and the land they did take was due to six nations attacking them. The PA also likes to incite violence towards Israel via phony shoot-out videos. My favorite one was the guy who said a tank round hit his hospital in which he then pointed out a cinder blocked sized chip in the wall. Funny thing is, tank rounds tend to blow big holes in walls. The PA makes stuff up, they extraggerate their losses from the Israelis; there plenty of documentries that disprove their claims.

by **munky73770** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:31 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4329216116050129838

^
Pallywood

by **Twister026** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:41 pm

hha nice vid monkey :lol:

by **SavageParrot** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:14 pm

That video's all well and good but it assumes that it's the palestinians who are behind the deception and not the foreign film crews whose livelyhood depends on getting nice copy. If you think official Israeli reporting is any more reliable then you are likely to be disappointed. The difference is the israelis have a good deal more money to put into theirs

If you have an hour here's a good piece of journalism for you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3174939144671427658&q=James+Miller

Of course he got shot in the neck by an israeli soldier while waving a white flag and announcing that he was an english journalist so you'll never get to see the israeli half of the documentary but you can't really hold that against him...

by **munky73770** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:02 pm

Time to school you Gentile n00bs. :p

WHAT DOES "PALESTINE" MEAN?

It has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there.

The word itself derives from "Peleshet", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". The Philistines were mediterranean people originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities.

The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina"; which is derived from the Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.

The use of the term "Palestinian" for an Arab ethnic group is a modern political creation which has no basis in fact - and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967.

This place was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.

Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/palestine.html

The only time "Palestine" was ruled by "Palestinians" or any people from the Arabian Peninsula was briefly around 635 A.D.
"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 A.D. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years...," the Muslim chairman of the Syrian Delegation attested in his remarks to the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919.
"Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel... " Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977

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

Israel is associated with the earliest stage in the history of humanity by the "Galilee Skull", while recent excavations in Jericho have produced the oldest evidence of organized city life.
The first known inhabitants of Israel in historic times were the Canaanites from whom the land long took its name. By c. 3000-2500 BCE the inhabitants seem to have been largely Semitic speaking; they introduced the use of bronze and developed cities. The Bible mentions seven tribes which dominated the country. The long struggle for its control between the South (Egypt) and the North (Assyria), which - in varying political forms - was to dominate the local scene down to the 19th cent. had already begun at this time.

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

Have a nice day,

:beer:

by **SavageParrot** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:52 am

Irrelevant. Whether or not there is any history of a state of palestine is not the issue. Neither is it the issue that the state of israel dates back 3000 + years. It hadn't existed for a long time prior to it's current incarnation.

Using history, and particularly ancient history, to justify military occupation and an apartheid style division of wealth and population seems awfully familiar; it's not necessarily something you'd want to be associated with though.

If anyone's interested in a full history rather than a few titbits wikipedia is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
Knowledge is power and all that

If you want to amuse yourself sit down and think of all the arguments that are used in favour of Israel's land grab and then work out how many times you have seen the same argument employed in reverse by the same organizations as reasons for why the british need to get out of Northern Ireland. The funny thing is in Northern Ireland the annexation was far longer than 30 years ago and yet it remains definatively wrong in the eyes of the american press which at the same time seems to think 30 years is too long for the palestinians to still be complaining about. Ditto with British settlers who in most cases have been in ireland for hundred of years but 'need to leave' while Israeli settlers who have been there in most cases for no more that 60 years are 'fully justified'. Can we get a little consitancy here

by **munky73770** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:22 am

Only because in you're prior post you stated, "I think if I had israeli tanks indescriminately fring into the ghetto I'd been forced to live in since israeli settlers stole my house".

Sorry, I know it was a bit off topic, but I got a little pissed.

by **SavageParrot** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:55 am

LoL np I said that for dramatic effect not as a statement of ultimate truth. I have this compulsive need to play devils advocate in any debate I see going on., it's a curse

On the whole though I don't like the whole suicide bombs bad, israeli military acceptable kind of ethos, especially when americans have in the past been extremely good at viewing it the other way round when talking about the IRA. I think you should call a spade a spade no matter who is carrying it

by **King** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:06 am

great news. Political and religous threads are a no go. you may go about yiour business. move along.

by **Major SONAR** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:11 am

in favour of Israel's land grab

I think you need to brush up on your history Parrot. If you read about the 6 day war you'll see that Israel did not "land grab".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Yes they launched a preemtive strike. (Smart move if you ask me as they were about to be attacked). After winning the war in only 6 days, they acquired the land [legally.. IMHO] as the spoils of war. As I understand it, Israel offered the land back if the Arab nations would recognize Israel as a nation and stop attacking. The Arab nations refused and Israel kept the land. Personally I don't call that land grabbing.

It's hard to know who to believe. There are so many lies flying around. I'm sure I haven't convinced you of anything, but there may be others out there who don't know the history of that region.

I am not Jewish and I have no ties to Israel.

by **SavageParrot** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:20 am

Originally posted by Major SONAR
After winning the war in only 6 days, they acquired the land [legally.. IMHO] as the spoils of war.

LoL Pre-emptive strike, with land as spoils of war...Czechoslovakia 1938 anyone?

Like I said I call a spade a spade whoever is holding it. 'Pre-emptive strike' means 'they invaded' (regardless of what the other side intended to do) and 'not giving the land back' means 'they grabbed it'. You can justify it (and for what it's worth I think the justifications are pretty persuasive) but you can't deny the nature of what it was

Anyway when is this thread gonna get locked :lol:

No money

No money

Who is online