Abby Gets Hot About Israeli War Crimes

[SAC]

The short and sweet.


Israeli "My god is better! We are the chosen ones."

Palestinians "No! my god is better we are the chosen ones."

So much death over a belief.  

An imaginary idea that has so many unimaginable consequences.

Israeli: Your Temple is built on the ruins of mine we were here first.
Palestinians: We were here first the Imams, God and all the idiot commentators that would like the Jews dead tells us so.

[1715557837]

1715557837

[1715557837]

1715557837

[Dalkore]

The short and sweet.


Israeli "My god is better! We are the chosen ones."

Palestinians "No! my god is better we are the chosen ones."

So much death over a belief.  

An imaginary idea that has so many unimaginable consequences.

Israeli: Your Temple is built on the ruins of mine we were here first.
Palestinians: We were here first the Imams, God and all the idiot commentators that would like the Jews dead tells us so.

This main point I take from this is that this is not a conflict that just happened 50 years ago, Jerusalem has been contested land for many many centuries.  Very old beef.

[SAC]

The short and sweet.


Israeli "My god is better! We are the chosen ones."

Palestinians "No! my god is better we are the chosen ones."

So much death over a belief.  

An imaginary idea that has so many unimaginable consequences.

Israeli: Your Temple is built on the ruins of mine we were here first.
Palestinians: We were here first the Imams, God and all the idiot commentators that would like the Jews dead tells us so.

This main point I take from this is that this is not a conflict that just happened 50 years ago, Jerusalem has been contested land for many many centuries.  Very old beef.

That and in order for the palestinians to claim first habitation it would be their ruins being built upon plus the supporters of theirs are mostly anti-semites looking to carry on the centuries old tradition of killing the Jews at every opportunity they can manufacture.

[Dalkore]

The short and sweet.


Israeli "My god is better! We are the chosen ones."

Palestinians "No! my god is better we are the chosen ones."

So much death over a belief.  

An imaginary idea that has so many unimaginable consequences.

Israeli: Your Temple is built on the ruins of mine we were here first.
Palestinians: We were here first the Imams, God and all the idiot commentators that would like the Jews dead tells us so.

This main point I take from this is that this is not a conflict that just happened 50 years ago, Jerusalem has been contested land for many many centuries.  Very old beef.

That and in order for the palestinians to claim first habitation it would be their ruins being built upon plus the supporters of theirs are mostly anti-semites looking to carry on the centuries old tradition of killing the Jews at every opportunity they can manufacture.

I am not sure we can use the word anti-semitic in this case.   If you look into what a Semitic person is and how Arabs are Semitic, they would be hating on themselves.    Maybe anti-Zionic or anti-Iraelic would more closely follow your statement.  

Wiki Link about Semitic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

If you are so inclined, reading on the history of how Jewish people fit into post-Christ life during the centuries, many times they were used (willing or not, still reading many texts about this) to do certain services that put them in a higher place in society (money changers, pawners and lenders) by the princes and kings.  The problem is that they usually did this "at their pleasure" so if they did something they didn't like or just gain too much wealth, they would come in and hurt or kill them and create populist reasons to get public support while not revealing the nature of the original business relationship between the Jewish people and the monarchs.  

[SAC]

The short and sweet.


Israeli "My god is better! We are the chosen ones."

Palestinians "No! my god is better we are the chosen ones."

So much death over a belief.  

An imaginary idea that has so many unimaginable consequences.

Israeli: Your Temple is built on the ruins of mine we were here first.
Palestinians: We were here first the Imams, God and all the idiot commentators that would like the Jews dead tells us so.

This main point I take from this is that this is not a conflict that just happened 50 years ago, Jerusalem has been contested land for many many centuries.  Very old beef.

That and in order for the palestinians to claim first habitation it would be their ruins being built upon plus the supporters of theirs are mostly anti-semites looking to carry on the centuries old tradition of killing the Jews at every opportunity they can manufacture.

I am not sure we can use the word anti-semitic in this case.   If you look into what a Semitic person is and how Arabs are Semitic, they would be hating on themselves.    Maybe anti-Zionic or anti-Iraelic would more closely follow your statement.  

Wiki Link about Semitic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

If you are so inclined, reading on the history of how Jewish people fit into post-Christ life during the centuries, many times they were used (willing or not, still reading many texts about this) to do certain services that put them in a higher place in society (money changers, pawners and lenders) by the princes and kings.  The problem is that they usually did this "at their pleasure" so if they did something they didn't like or just gain too much wealth, they would come in and hurt or kill them and create populist reasons to get public support while not revealing the nature of the original business relationship between the Jewish people and the monarchs.  

I know the history bud and while true most do not consider Arabs to be semites when using the term as I did referring to Jews if you knew your history or had any common sense you would have known that usage.

[Rudd-O]

Nobodys freedom of movement is being restricted inside gaza... nobodys human rights are being violated or restricted by anyone inside gaza (except of course for muslim oppression of women).

That's part of the definition of "open-air prison" - throw 'em in, and let 'em wander. Just as long as they don't try to leave.

I like how firefop invents this magical exclusionary criterion "if you can wander inside the area, the area is not a prison" that is entirely nonsensical.  I guess only solitary confinement in chains qualifies as "prison" to him.  Behehehe.

[SAC]

Nobodys freedom of movement is being restricted inside gaza... nobodys human rights are being violated or restricted by anyone inside gaza (except of course for muslim oppression of women).

That's part of the definition of "open-air prison" - throw 'em in, and let 'em wander. Just as long as they don't try to leave.

I like how firefop invents this magical exclusionary criterion "if you can wander inside the area, the area is not a prison" that is entirely nonsensical.  I guess only solitary confinement in chains qualifies as "prison" to him.  Behehehe.

And I like how you people somehow take the people living in gaza by their own choice as being a prison. BTW this same treatment that supposedly makes them a prisoner is practiced by the Egyptians who also will not allow them to come and go as they please yet not a word on that eh.

[firefop]

The problem is simple (No particular order):

1. Palestinians or operators on their land need to stop firing rockets into Israel

2. Israel needs to stop blowing up anything they want when they get attacked.  


It is a vicious cycle of violence and retaliation.  That simple.


Solution: Now this is much more tricky.   First off, Israel at this point does not want Palestinians as full equal voting citizens in Israel.   I don't think a majority of Palestinians would accept those terms either.  The obvious solution is a two-state solution.  Concessions need to be made on both sides.  Both sides and especially the Palestinians need to police and stop these terrorists that are firing rockets so it doesn't give Israel the justified response to blow things up in Palestine.  

Water rights need to be divided and they need a trade agreement so Israel has access to labor and Palestine has access to commerce and the ports.   Jewish people needs a homeland, they have a strong enough identity that justifies it and they do have a legitimate claim to some area in the region surrounding Jerusalem.

One of the areas I am research and will be reading up on who was the actual aggressor of the Arab-Israeli war of 1976.   That would allow me to give an opinion on the Golan heights and "if" Israel should give proper and just compensation for that territory taken during that time of war.

If you are debating anything outside of what I have laid out, you most likely are taking sides and at that point your opinion is compromised regardless if history proves your correct.   Both sides have fault in this matter and do things to intentionally antagonize each other because of this disputed territory.  


I would like constructive comments (ie: name calling will get you no where except discredit your statements) from both sides IF, you have actually read history books on the events of pre-1917 (balfour declaration), 1946 (UN recognition) and 1976 (war).   I would like to know about life in the area leading up to these major events.   That would help me shape my opinion further or guide my research.  I want Books, official documents and academic paper references only.   No blogs or press, they in the most part have taken sides and that doesn't help me or the discussion.

Now lets see what happens in this thread.   Please surprise me, I am taking a leap of faith here.
-D

I absolutely agree with both 1. and 2. But I find it unlikely to ever happen.

How can a 2 state solution ever be workable when one of the proposed states wants to exterminate the entire population of the other state due to religion? I agree that water rights is a big part of the problem... but while you and I might be able to agree to a fair division and access of land/water I don't really believe that israel and palastine ever will. Because where the incentive to make any concessions when it will only result in more people trying to kill you?

[firefop]

Nobodys freedom of movement is being restricted inside gaza... nobodys human rights are being violated or restricted by anyone inside gaza (except of course for muslim oppression of women).

That's part of the definition of "open-air prison" - throw 'em in, and let 'em wander. Just as long as they don't try to leave.

I like how firefop invents this magical exclusionary criterion "if you can wander inside the area, the area is not a prison" that is entirely nonsensical.  I guess only solitary confinement in chains qualifies as "prison" to him.  Behehehe.

Without restriction of movement or violation of rights - you can't reasonably say that someone is "in prison" - I stand by the veracity of the statement. Since the people of gaza can leave gaza (just not into israel) it isn't any sort of prison. Period.

[firefop]

And I like how you people somehow take the people living in gaza by their own choice as being a prison. BTW this same treatment that supposedly makes them a prisoner is practiced by the Egyptians who also will not allow them to come and go as they please yet not a word on that eh.

Actually, they can travel to egypt pretty much at will... but only on foot only and without carrying anything with them (trade goods etc).

The problem with getting out of gaza is really that hamas is unlikely to let you through to the border with egypt, the israel border is much more accessable but as an arab attempting to leave gaza that really isn't much of an option.

[SAC]

And I like how you people somehow take the people living in gaza by their own choice as being a prison. BTW this same treatment that supposedly makes them a prisoner is practiced by the Egyptians who also will not allow them to come and go as they please yet not a word on that eh.

Actually, they can travel to egypt pretty much at will... but only on foot only and without carrying anything with them (trade goods etc).

The problem with getting out of gaza is really that hamas is unlikely to let you through to the border with egypt,

No doubt it keeps the conditions disgusting just what the aim is. What I find funny about these whining Jew hating little bitches is this. Somehow the Jew is supposed to be this still meekly accepting their slaughter type. That ship has sailed these Jews today are not going for that shit anymore you kill them they kill you. So sorry about their luck don't whine when the other side does to you what you do to them.

[Rudd-O]

"If you don't like being bombed, you can moooooooooooooove".

"Nice" to hear rape apologist argumentation here.  Apparently, blaming victims for their "choices" never goes out of style.

[Dalkore]

And I like how you people somehow take the people living in gaza by their own choice as being a prison. BTW this same treatment that supposedly makes them a prisoner is practiced by the Egyptians who also will not allow them to come and go as they please yet not a word on that eh.

Actually, they can travel to egypt pretty much at will... but only on foot only and without carrying anything with them (trade goods etc).

The problem with getting out of gaza is really that hamas is unlikely to let you through to the border with egypt,

No doubt it keeps the conditions disgusting just what the aim is. What I find funny about these whining Jew hating little bitches is this. Somehow the Jew is supposed to be this still meekly accepting their slaughter type. That ship has sailed these Jews today are not going for that shit anymore you kill them they kill you. So sorry about their luck don't whine when the other side does to you what you do to them.

I can't help wondering why your grasp of writing the English language is sort of sub-standard.  Are you upset when you write this?   Just read what you said aloud.  Is opposition to a countries strategy being a "Jew hating bitch" as you put it?  You seem to marry the two and I have notices any opposition always falls back to the default position that you must hate Jews.  Me personally love all people from all ethnic backgrounds.   Specific bad people or bad groups are what I take issue with, I define bad as people who want to take liberty at the "expense" of another group or person.   In this case, like I stated, both sides have faults and both sides and good points.

Now you above you tried to attack me first by talking to me disrespectfully by calling me "bud", I am not your "bud" at this point, I have name or alias as in this forum. 

Second, you called me out about not knowing my history, first off, if you took time to read what I wrote earlier, you would of learned that I admitted this and that is why I wanted to get "constructive and informative feedback".   So I ask you SAC, what history in your opinion should I be reading, I would like some actually titles so I can read them.   

Also, you telling me it is "common sense" to know "anti-semitic" means Jewish peoples is non-sense because from where I see this debate, the word anti-Semitic came into mainstream knowledge after the Nazi holocaust and that was an atrocious act of genocide.  So when you use that term when we are talking about a "different" conflict, you are playing on people emotions from a previous despicable act to push your point of view.   

That may work on others but not here.   Try again.    So either you step it up and actually explain your position with support facts (ie: link me creditable info) in proper English without your anger and name-calling or continue to be discredited and marginalized. 

The choice is yours SAC

D

[firefop]

"If you don't like being bombed, you can moooooooooooooove".

"Nice" to hear rape apologist argumentation here.  Apparently, blaming victims for their "choices" never goes out of style.

About what I expected. Completely ignore who exactly it is who keeps inciting violence there.



I think that about sums it up.

[myrkul]

"If you don't like being bombed, you can moooooooooooooove".

"Nice" to hear rape apologist argumentation here.  Apparently, blaming victims for their "choices" never goes out of style.

About what I expected. Completely ignore who exactly it is who keeps inciting violence there.

Firing missiles back into a civilian population center is hardly "defending yourself." Is Hamas in the wrong? Yes. Does that mean that Israel is in the right? No, no it does not.

[firefop]

"If you don't like being bombed, you can moooooooooooooove".

"Nice" to hear rape apologist argumentation here.  Apparently, blaming victims for their "choices" never goes out of style.

About what I expected. Completely ignore who exactly it is who keeps inciting violence there.

Firing missiles back into a civilian population center is hardly "defending yourself." Is Hamas in the wrong? Yes. Does that mean that Israel is in the right? No, no it does not.

First the population that harbors terrorists is nearly as much a part of the problem as the terrorists themselves.

Second; As I've pointed out before,  if it was happening anywhere else (say the border between texas and mexico) the area the attacks were coming from would be leveled and depopulated within a matter of days. Israel has shown great restraint over the years, suffering constant attacks - with only an occasional retaliation. Any other nation would have leveled the area completely and lived without the constant threat.

[Dalkore]

The cartoon is cute but not reality from what the media reports, even the Israeli ones.   The response from Israel is quite fierce and enduring.    They both have taken the gloves off and hit each other hard.   You just discredit yourself further with cartoons and mis-represented facts. 

[Dalkore]

"If you don't like being bombed, you can moooooooooooooove".

"Nice" to hear rape apologist argumentation here.  Apparently, blaming victims for their "choices" never goes out of style.

About what I expected. Completely ignore who exactly it is who keeps inciting violence there.

Firing missiles back into a civilian population center is hardly "defending yourself." Is Hamas in the wrong? Yes. Does that mean that Israel is in the right? No, no it does not.

First the population that harbors terrorists is nearly as much a part of the problem as the terrorists themselves.

Second; As I've pointed out before,  if it was happening anywhere else (say the border between texas and mexico) the area the attacks were coming from would be leveled and depopulated within a matter of days. Israel has shown great restraint over the years, suffering constant attacks - with only an occasional retaliation. Any other nation would have leveled the area completely and lived without the constant threat.

Actually we have had attacks on the U.S./Mexico border and because they are our ally and international partner, it is very delicate situation; we don't go into their sovereign territory chasing terrorists (ie: drug cartels in this case).  Try doing some research next time before making false analogies.   

[myrkul]

"If you don't like being bombed, you can moooooooooooooove".

"Nice" to hear rape apologist argumentation here.  Apparently, blaming victims for their "choices" never goes out of style.

About what I expected. Completely ignore who exactly it is who keeps inciting violence there.

Firing missiles back into a civilian population center is hardly "defending yourself." Is Hamas in the wrong? Yes. Does that mean that Israel is in the right? No, no it does not.

First the population that harbors terrorists is nearly as much a part of the problem as the terrorists themselves.

And the civilian deaths are what makes people pissed off enough to become terrorists, repeat ad nauseum.

[firefop]

First the population that harbors terrorists is nearly as much a part of the problem as the terrorists themselves.

And the civilian deaths are what makes people pissed off enough to become terrorists, repeat ad nauseum.

Incorrect. Hamas wishes to exterminate the jews. It's always been about jihad for islam.