Lifestyle > Train of Thought
President of Iran says Israel should be moved to Europe.....
I TO DA GEEZY:
Two questions,1. Have you ever heared of any land where there were no people living on it?(aside from the poles)
2.What would make a movement that was not hostile toward the native population become harmful to some of it?(See, I'm even using the inconcrete euphemism you so very much like ;) because you seem to be unable to answer without it)
Wait I believe you've already answered question number 2 long ago:
--- Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel on October 19, 2005, 12:20:20 PM ---You also have to understand that people don't just let others come and take their land without resistance... the Zionists knew what they were getting into... so everytime you see a bus blow up, to them that's just a few people lost for a greater cause.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel on December 15, 2005, 03:13:28 PM --- the racism that Zionists portrayed emerged after the settlement of the land...
--- End quote ---
:) really?
--- Quote ---In February 1919, the Emir Faisal, the one recognised Arab leader at the time, then still striving for the creation of Arab political independence in Syria (of which he was briefly king) and Iraq (over which he and his house subsequently ruled for forty years), signed a formal agreement with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing the Zionist Organisation. This provided for co-operation between the projected Arab state and the projected reconstituted Jewish state of Palestine. Borders were still to be negotiated, but Faisal had already described the Zionist proposals as "moderate and proper." The borders proposed by the Zionists included what subsequently became Mandatory Palestine on both banks of the Jordan as well as north-western Galilee up to the Litany River-later included in southern Lebanon -- part of the Golan Heights -- later included in Syria -- and part of Sinai -- left under British administration in Egypt
--- End quote ---
settlement began much earlier as you know and resistance only later and after the agreement.
J @ M @ L:
1. You should ask the Zionists that question... I mean after all, they were the ones who assumed that there weren't any people living there... and if they did, well then you have proven my point in that they knew they were going to displace a population to accomplish their goal.
2. It was hostile. It wasn't racist in nature. Hostile isn't synonymous with racist. It was hostile because the Zionists were trying to accomplish their goal... what I mean by there initially not being any racism in their ideology is that to them it didn't matter who was living on the land they wanted to take... if that land were inhabited by Chinese people, the Zionists would've done the same thing... it didn't have anything to do with the people being Palestinian or Arab.. do you get it???
3. I can give you plenty of quotes that you seem to be so fond of that will show you how Zionists were the exact opposite of proper and moderate... but if it's anti-Zionist, it must be propaganda, right?
4. You lost a long time ago... you're starting to not even make sense anymore. "inconcrete euphemism"... I used it because you don't understand that a TERM used in modern times can be used to describe something that existed in the past, but wasn't referred to by the same term... is it wrong to refer to African-Americans of the 17th century as African-American.. or would I have to use the term nigger simply because the term African-American didn't exist back then?
I TO DA GEEZY:
--- Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel on December 16, 2005, 03:26:57 PM ---1. You should ask the Zionists that question... I mean after all, they were the ones who assumed that there weren't any people living there... and if they did, well then you have proven my point in that they knew they were going to displace a population to accomplish their goal.
2. It was hostile. It wasn't racist in nature. Hostile isn't synonymous with racist. It was hostile because the Zionists were trying to accomplish their goal... what I mean by there initially not being any racism in their ideology is that to them it didn't matter who was living on the land they wanted to take... if that land were inhabited by Chinese people, the Zionists would've done the same thing... it didn't have anything to do with the people being Palestinian or Arab.. do you get it???
3. I can give you plenty of quotes that you seem to be so fond of that will show you how Zionists were the exact opposite of proper and moderate... but if it's anti-Zionist, it must be propaganda, right?
4. You lost a long time ago... you're starting to not even make sense anymore. "inconcrete euphemism"... I used it because you don't understand that a TERM used in modern times can be used to describe something that existed in the past, but wasn't referred to by the same term... is it wrong to refer to African-Americans of the 17th century as African-American.. or would I have to use the term nigger simply because the term African-American didn't exist back then?
--- End quote ---
My man the point is, since there is no land without any people living on it(something you avoided answering), that you simply oppose the idea of a Jewish sovereign state anywhere(Something we've established long ago when you said you oppose Zionism\creation of Israel to begin with, following by your denial) and that you'd rather have yet another Arab state.Those who initiated national hostility were the locals, and that is after an agreement that was signed>Zionism, just like Israel nowadays, simply defended its existence and goals as a result of this hostility.Zionists, due to identification, at the time even made the historical mistake of adressing this hostility as if it were a true national movement[Disregarding it's reactive nature and that schizo among the local population it had shown,being that some were for and some were against the dea of 2 states side by side-might be because their self-proclaimed leadership sided those who were against. told you I ain't fond of everything Zionists\Israel does].
You admitting Zionism was not rascist showes that you understand its actions were self-defensive and reactive to the hostility from newfound national movements among the local population.
The fact of the term Palestinian not existing before Zionism does not mean people didn't live on this land(FACT-People lived on this land like there are people on most lands<never denied) but it does mean that they had no national agenda and that their national agenda is merely a political ploy, since its creation was reactive. Like Infinite said about propaganda tactics in the Al-ZARQAWI thread:
--- Quote from: Allah's Slave: Abdul-Infinite on December 15, 2005, 03:56:47 PM ---This is an old school propaganda tactic. You have to put an image to the resistance. It can't be faceless.
--- End quote ---
^^^This is exactly what was done on the part of the Palestinian Arab Leaders.
P.s You're trying to throw the discussion off track by focusing on semantics instead of focusing on the final stage of semantics(-the meaning of the words alone). And lol@wasting entire paragraphs on ego tripping, with your win/Loose nonesense :) at the expense of posting on topic.
J @ M @ L:
1. The Zionists had no claim to that land.. they were Europeans
2. Yes the Palestinians (the indigenous population.. aka the people who got their land taken away) were hostile... but what's the cause and what's the effect? Surely you've read the quote from one of your beloved Zionist terrorists explaining how no population has ever just handed their land over to people trying to take it...
3. You say you're not fond of everything Israel/Zionism does... yet you try to deny that certain people have been made victims? What actions don't you agree with then? Are they being too lenient perhaps? Should the wall be bigger in your opinion? What don't you agree with? I mean, obviously it has nothing to do with them having committed anything wrong against the Palestinian people. Or maybe perhaps you know that I'm right, but refuse to explicitly admit it...
4. Again, yes the Palestinian national movement did begin as a reaction to Zionism... so what? Does that justify the killings of Palestinian people? Does that justify removing them off the land? Does that justify building a wall on their land? Israel's actions are unjustified in trying to accomplish the goals of the Zionist movement... that's all I've said, and that holds true... no matter what irrelevancies you try bringing up. "Zionism came before Palestinian nationalism"... how that correlates to their atrocities being justified boggles my mind, but maybe it's because I haven't been fed the same bullshit you have...
5. I throw the discussion off track by focusing on semantics? LOLLL... read my posts and then read yours... go look at the other thread... read my posts and then read yours... you seem like someone drowning throwing his arms all over the place trying to keep afloat... and then you say I waste entire paragraphs on ego tripping rather than staying on topic... I know you're a Zionist so things are bound to be taken out of context and you'd rather focus on one line you can say something about, rather than focus on my post in its entirety, so I'll remind you that in my last post I made 4 points.. and only 1 was pointing out you're an idiot.. while the other 3 were on topic, and quite frankly were proving why you're an idiot, rather than simply stating that you are.
I TO DA GEEZY:
--- Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel on December 17, 2005, 11:40:33 AM --- The Zionists had no claim to that land.. they were Europeans
--- End quote ---
You simply oppose the idea of a Jewish sovereign state anywhere.
Those Jews were much less European(Having lived for centuries in segregation and under persecution and being Jewish- the people who were exiled from the land and had no land for centuries) than ,say, Palestinians were Arab(who had like a number of national states by the time Israel was declared and who left the land to clear the way for Arab armies who were to eliminate their right to a sovereign state ) so even based on your logic they have much more claim to the land...you keep reciting your anti-Israeli propaganda man.
Nice work disregarding the agreement that had been signed and the fact most Palestinians weren't driven of the land but left due to the orders and intimidations of their leaders and leaders of Arab States.Let's not forget that you completely chose to disregard the fact that Palestinians who didn't oppose Zionism didn't get any representation at all as far as leadership went after the resistance started< And this is what can not be justified and what made many Palestinians victims.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version