phanatic Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Originally posted by SkinInsite The Isreali government will never allow the expelled (or left on their own accord, depending on your point of view) Palestinians return. So you have 4 million people sitting around with no where to go. The other Arab states sit around and do nothing because those refugees would counter what they fear a strong Jewish state. Remembr what happened when they tried to move into southern Syria? Oh they were greeted with open :asta: :asta: Ten's of thousands slaughtered. I guess it's ok when you kill you "own", just don't cross, races religions, creeds and now, sexuality. Diversity is becoming isolation. How many more times can we take the equation out before we reach infinity? Where are we going with all of this? Take a really long look and you just might see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Originally posted by SKINZ_DOMIN8 Spoils of war? Using your logic then we should be occupying Japan, Germany, Great Britain, France, Spain and everyone else we defeated. Again, let me ask: Who's land is it? Who was there first? and Who was GIVEN the land, not won by a war? Hint: Not the Israelis who had their land given to them by the United States. Before you spout anymore of your anti-Semetic bullsh!t, perhaps you'd like to gain a small amount of credibility by showing us a map (not one that hangs in some maddress either) that shows the country of "Palestien". Rand McNally will do, or any other credible publisher. Good luck, because I will tell you before you even get your obviously slow mind into first gear, you will find no such animal. Until you can show that, anything else you spout here is without merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phanatic Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Originally posted by SKINZ_DOMIN8 Where did/does Israel get the vast majority of its weapons? Idiot. Why not buy from the best? How many people have been killed by those chechnakov rifles? RPG's? If the Jews were shiites and the Palestinians were Sunnis, would you care? But the war in Iraq was wrong? You seem to care about the few thousand Palestinians killed in Isreal but the mindless torture and suppression of the Shiites by Saddam didn't affect you? Must be terrible when the majority of your population is not allowed to practice their own religion without the fear of being raped, murdered and tortured. Where's the logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ_DOMIN8 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Before you spout anymore of your anti-Semetic bullsh!t What makes me "Anti-Semetic" the fact that I dare disagree with the goody-goody prevaling majority or the fact that I agree with the Israeli Doves that believe in a Palestinian state and human civil rights as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Originally posted by phanatic Oh and by the way, I already give a good percentage of whats mine to the government. I just don't feel like giving even more to Kerry and his socialist agenda!!! Do you know what "socialist" means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 SKINZ_DOMIN8, here's the point. Israel bought a great deal of land, enough to be granted their own government in those purchased lands. Palestine, along with Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attacked the much smaller, younger Israel on numerous occasions, all unprovoked. Israel not only overcame, they kicked the crap out of the much stronger Arab nations, gaining territory in the process. To ask much less demand the land be given back is an unjust, biased, and ill-conceived request. Not only that, but according to a little thing called, oh, damn, what's it called?, oh yeah, GEOGRAPHY, Israel is incredibly small for a country. Without the lands taken from their unjust attackers, Israels tiny borders are undefendable. That is unacceptable considering their neighbors' history for randomly attacking. And for the record, it wasn't 98% of previous Palestinian land that was offered, which is still a great offer considering the circumstances in which it changed hands, it was 98% of what THEY asked for. During peace talks, haggling is normal (Jewish jokes will lead to immediate seeking out and kicking in the balls, BTW). And that wasn't why they denied the treaty. They wanted right-of-return, totally throwing the Jewish balance of power out of whack, and negating the need for a Palestinian state in the first place. Why would they need Palestine if they are just going to return to Israel? And THAT is the root of the problem. The Palestinians make it painfully obvious that peace and a state are not the issues- driving Israel and its people into the Mediterranean is their main goal. They want Palestine AND the right to come back to Israel? Why? You cannot justify them, their cause, or their actions. I could go for hours, but let's deduce it to this: Palestinians, and the proof is mentioned above, want to destroy Israel, and they will say and try anything to do it. Those who support their cause are wrong and form the liberal (and this is coming from a centrist who would vote for Kerry if he could), short-sighted, and reactionary group of radicals that do just as much damage to this country as the ultra-conservatives running it now. Thank you, I'll be here 'till Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 "Liberal," "reactionary," and "radical" aren't really the most compatible of terms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Liberal - open-minded, generally possessing a set of views towards the left-side of the political spectrum (i.e. Those who believe that Palestinians are not COMPLETELY wrong) reactionary - hastily reacting to the situation that presents itself, usually the reaction being governed by ones set of views (i.e. simply calling the Israelis terrorists as soon as they kill a TERRORIST leader; further research would indicate that terrorism and aggressive prevention are totally different) radical - far-fetched, following a defined set of views so far that it defies logic. Nope, sorry Ancalagon, those sound about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miragv Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 dont call someone anti-semtic just because they dont agree with what israel is doing. i totally disagree with what israel is currently doing and i am by no means anti-semitic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Just misinformed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 DCogan1820, I don't know where you're getting your definitions from. I agree that if we're allowed to make up what words mean, then anything we say can be appropriate. However, we can't. I'm the last one to rely on dictionary definitions during a debate. I think that that's usually small-minded and silly, given that no dictionary includes all of the connotations of how we use words. If you would like, however, I could post some dictionary defs for you. But if you want to go by how those words are used in common parlance, you'd recognize that "reactionary" is associated with ultraconservatism and not necessarily just "reacting," while "radical" does not mean far-fetched. Indeed, several people on this board define themselves as "radical." Do you think they're saying that they're defying logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 OK, fine but you just contradicted yourself. The words can have those connotations, and did have those connotations. Words have many connotations, and all the words I used fit their connotations. I'm not going to get into a gramatical debate with you, I do it every day in AP English Language. It sucks and it bores me. Nevertheless, you got the point. The Palestinians' thinly veiled attempt to hide at least THEIR anti-semitism (not yours, and for the record I never said you were anti-semitic) and their illogical need to destroy Jewish culture and religion defy logic. They will do all they can to force their views upon the world, making them RADICALS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Originally posted by SKINZ_DOMIN8 What makes me "Anti-Semetic" the fact that I dare disagree with the goody-goody prevaling majority or the fact that I agree with the Israeli Doves that believe in a Palestinian state and human civil rights as well? Where is my map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Hmm Ancalagon, I think that the "parlance" is somewhat manipulated. Hell, check the definitions for fascism or the dictionary entries for Stalin and Castro vs. Hitler and Franco(well, not sure about all dictionaries) I think too, just like liberal was stolen and how libertarian is in the middle of being stolen by cats like Noam Chomsky, that radical should mean what it means. A person, regardless of political orientation, should be called radical if they seek "radical" change in the society. At this stage, on American campuses(generally), the radicals are the members of the right, while the reactionaries are the leftist students, hangers-on and sympathetic faculty. Another example of misuse of such terms is when the media kept referring to hardline Communists in the Soviet Union during the coup as "conservatives" while those opposing them were "radical." That's not fair. While the 'dictionary' sense of the word may render that usage correct, it is clear that it was a manipulation. They could as easily kept referring to the communist holdouts as "hardliners" or something but the repetitive use of "conservative" was nothing but a smear. So I think a balance has to be found between dictionary and normal parlance, otherwise even a person who espoused free market and a republican form of government(or no government) in North Korea would be called a "reactionary" and the leadership "radical." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Ghost, I agree. That's why I quibbled with dcogan's terminology. It fits neither the current dictionary def, nor common usage. Furthermore, it doesn't fit any historical usage of those terms as regards this conflict. For the record, classical liberalism evolved into modern liberalism based on an expansion of Locke's theories of property and just acquisition. The modern-day libertarians choose to ignore a lot of this Lockean theory. Chomsky is a libertarian as the Europeans use the term, so he's not really stealing anything. In any case, "radical" and "reactionary" can rarely be used to describe the exact same group in the same sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 979guy Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Originally posted by SKINZ_DOMIN8 Where did/does Israel get the vast majority of its weapons? Idiot. Israel was "given" its land by the UN. Not the US, the UN. It then resorted to defend it against a multitude of Arab armies which attacked it from every single direction. Want to contradict - please give me some different F-A-C-T-s. BTW - the newly constructed IDF relied on a "vast majority" of Czech and British machinery. The US had practically NOTHING to do with Israel's war of Independence. If anything, the Soviets had an interest in Israel back then as a socialist democracy. BTW - who did you call an "idiot"? BTW - in 1964 was it the PLO's "PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER" which read that, "The partitioning of Palestine [by the UN], which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void"? Who do the Palestinians run to today, if not the same UN, to make new decisions? And in 1964 (before the Six Day War) when this was established, which lands were they that Israel "stole"? SKINZ_DUMBIN8, its nice that you know how to type and even use the Internet. But, if you are so good at making up stories, I'd suggest you don't waste our time but rather go write a novel. Idiot, you said? Oh, and Sarge - there's the map. Notice, "liberation" is of ALL lands. 1947, 1948, 1967, 1994 - all just numbers. The Palestinians NEVER hid their true intentions: ALL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ_DOMIN8 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Israel was "given" its land by the UN. Not the US, the UN. Tell me then, where does Israel continue to get territory for all of its Illegal settlements? Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 WHERE IS THE MAP OF PALESTINE? IDIOT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 979guy Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Originally posted by Sarge WHERE IS THE MAP OF PALESTINE? IDIOT Sarge, cut the guy some slack - he's got a point. Only an idiot would waste time on him... Plus, he really thinks (wrong verb, maybe) he's convincing with his insults, let him think its working, maybe he'll leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Originally posted by 979guy Sarge, cut the guy some slack - he's got a point. Only an idiot would waste time on him... Plus, he really thinks (wrong verb, maybe) he's convincing with his insults, let him think its working, maybe he'll leave. Sorry 979, I don't cut uninformed idiots slack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.