West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: I TO DA GEEZY on January 03, 2006, 10:04:22 AM
-
10 boxes all locked- same size same color
Given- 5 coins have been scattered over 5 of the boxes
You've been aloud to open 4 boxes out of the 10.
After having opened them you realize all 4 are empty.
Now to the question:
Can you logically claim there are no coins within the rest of the boxes based on your findings?
-
yes, it's clear that all the boxes are empty.
several reasons:
a) we know that the boxes were locked before the coins were scattered over them. how can the coins get into a locked box?
b) we know that the boxes are identical. there's no way the boxes are identical if some have coins in them and some do not.
c) the coins probably fell onto the floor between the gaps in the boxes. has anyone checked the floor?
d) who scattered these coins? can we trust them? i submit the coins were never scattered, but pocketed by an untrustworthy individual who then sent us on a wild goose chase.
e) what prevented hobos or pan handlers from retrieving the coins? was anyone looking out for hobo's and panhandlers?
f) it's too expensive to continue searching through these boxes when preliminary results indicate the boxes are empty.
g) who checked the first four boxes? how do we know that person is honest? if all five coins have already been recovered there can't be any more coins in the other six boxes.
h) there are no coins, and there are no boxes.
i) there are too many reasons why the boxes might be empty to conclude anything other than the boxes are empty.
-
Genetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline
A researcher deals with science and facts and wouldn't say all Jews didn't have Khazar bloodline because that would be a generalization. Generalization is something you're used to
Now can we logically conclude that you're an idiot?
-
Genetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline
A researcher deals with science and facts and wouldn't say all Jews didn't have Khazar bloodline because that would be a generalization. Generalization is something you're used to
Now can we logically conclude that you're an idiot?
LMAO
nibs nailed it
-
No, you can't logically conclude that there's no coins in the box. You can't conclude anything, because there isn't a large enough sample? (wording may be wrong) set. If there were 10,000 boxes, and you opened 4,000 of them, and didn't find any of the 5,000 coins, then maybe you could conclude, logically, that stastistically speaking, there cannot be 5,000 coins in the remaining 6,000 boxes.
4 out of 10 you can't conclude anything.
-
No, you can't logically conclude that there's no coins in the box. You can't conclude anything, because there isn't a large enough sample? (wording may be wrong) set. If there were 10,000 boxes, and you opened 4,000 of them, and didn't find any of the 5,000 coins, then maybe you could conclude, logically, that stastistically speaking, there cannot be 5,000 coins in the remaining 6,000 boxes.
4 out of 10 you can't conclude anything.
the boxes are locked. you can conclued that no coins are in boxes.
-
No, you can't logically conclude that there's no coins in the box. You can't conclude anything, because there isn't a large enough sample? (wording may be wrong) set. If there were 10,000 boxes, and you opened 4,000 of them, and didn't find any of the 5,000 coins, then maybe you could conclude, logically, that stastistically speaking, there cannot be 5,000 coins in the remaining 6,000 boxes.
4 out of 10 you can't conclude anything.
the boxes are locked. you can conclued that no coins are in boxes.
Nope, you don't have enough information to conclude that there's no coins in the remaining 6 boxes. --
-
a. riddles are fucking stupid, what kind of logic does it want us to use ? how the fucking question is worded, or on the actual riddle ??
b. these things piss me off
c. if we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.
d. if youre going by 'logic' then you cant conclude shit like trauma said... it is possible to open 4 boxes and recover no coins because there still are another 6 boxes remaining... even though unlikely...
i hate riddles, they are the stupidest thing ever created.
-
if we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.
Exactly my point, lol@people playing themselves. It is said 5 coins were scattered there is no way in which 5 out of the unopened boxes can be empty.
Jamal, This is an analogy
Boxes=Jews
Coins=Khazzar Bloodline
Even if you didn't find any you can't generalize especially when you have additional info. Not all Jews were tested and it's known for a fact that the Khazar tribe converted(Just like it's known for a fact 5 coins have been scattered), so when a scientist doesn't find Khazar traces he can't say "No Jews have Khazar genes" because 1.Not all Jews were tested 2.It is known for a fact the Khazar tribe converted and that some Jews have non-semite genes in addition to their semite genes[Although there is no certain Khazar prototype to compare with as well]. Fact remains that scientists didn't find any Khazar traces: non-semite eastern European genes do not necessarily mean Khazar.
-
Jamal, This is an analogy
Boxes=Jews
Coins=Khazzar Bloodline
No shit Sherlock... that's why I made the post above. (check what I changed the topic title to in my post)
Even if you didn't find any you can't generalize especially when you have additional info. Not all Jews were tested and it's known for a fact that the Khazar tribe converted(Just like it's known for a fact 5 coins have been scattered), so when a scientist doesn't find Khazar traces he can't say "No Jews have Khazar genes" because 1.Not all Jews were tested 2.It is known for a fact the Khazar tribe converted and that some Jews have non-semite genes in addition to their semite genes[Although there is no certain Khazar prototype to compare with as well]. Fact remains that scientists didn't find any Khazar traces: non-semite eastern European genes do not necessarily mean Khazar.
1. That would imply that the descendants of those who converted have become extinct. The researchers KNOW FOR A FACT that Khazars have converted... and up until they had done this research, it was believed that Ashkenazi Jews were PRIMARILY descendants of this ONE TRIBE (Khazar)... after the research, they were able to conclude that they're NOT PRIMARILY descendant of this ONE TRIBE.
2. What you're implying would mean that the descendants of those who converted have become extinct.... which is a retarded unfounded claim.... OR it could simply mean that it is more likely that those Jews sent into exile have become extinct... which is it?
3. So who's the one used to generalizations, you retarded clown? LOLLLL read your post until you laugh at yourself, you fucking waste of human life.
Genetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline
A researcher deals with science and facts and wouldn't say all Jews didn't have Khazar bloodline because that would be a generalization. Generalization is something you're used to
^ This explains it all. You're a fucking idiot. You really have no reason to come back and try to justify yourself after displaying this extreme stupidity. You don't have the ability to put 2 and 2 together.
-
if we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.
Exactly my point, lol@people playing themselves.
You're a fucking idiot, man... LOLLLL
-
:) Again it is amusing to see how a person who has nothing grounded to say is resorting to personal remarks.
1. Ashkenazi Jews being primarily descendants of Khazars is a recent- highly disputed and subsequently disproved- theory. Trying to present this as some sort of a conjectural broad consensus among scientists prior to the research again showes how you like to generalize and how easy it is for you to contradict yourself.
up until they had done this research, it was believed that Ashkenazi Jews were PRIMARILY descendants of this ONE TRIBE (Khazar).
The only thing that's debated is if Ashkenazi Jews are PRIMARILY descendant of the Khazars
See the diff between consensus and debate?- But you're going to say "believed" is in no way different from "debated", and that I am making assumptions , right?
Only that when you say "it was believed Jews were primarily descended from Khazars" without mentioning that "it was [also] believed they weren't" you are saying it was a consensus among researchers. :)
2.No it doesn't imply that descendants of those who converted don't exist anymore. It simply means a percentage of those Khazars who converted intermixed with semite Jews and that those who didn't intermix wouldn't have any semite trace in them, hence, they wouldn't be defined as "semites"\"descendants of exiled Jews" . Thing is there is no certain Khazar specimen nowdays to compare with, while there is a Semite-Israelite-Jewish one.
3.How in hell would it mean descendants of exiled Jews have become extinct when we're talking about semite-"exiled Jews"-genes among Ashkenazi Jews?- Man you seem to have lost your last remainders of rationality.
-
what the fuck are you guys talking about ? makin me feel like chubacca...
-
lol...Sorry man, this "so called" riddle was an analogy targeted at Jamal. Something to help him get along with reality.Something to point out what happens when you generalize when your generalization entails the contradiction of known/given facts.
-
1. Ashkenazi Jews being primarily descendants of Khazars is a recent- highly disputed and subsequently disproved- theory.
Are you really this dumb? Go back and read the posts to see how often I emphasized the word primarily... the fact that a certain proportion of Ashkenazi Jews must be descendants of Khazars is NOT disputed... the fact that they're primarily descendants is disputed... which is exactly what I said from the beginning. If you agree to this, then you're an idiot for arguing it in the first place, and you finally admit that you're wrong.
2.No it doesn't imply that descendants of those who converted don't exist anymore. It simply means a percentage of those Khazars who converted intermixed with semite Jews and that those who didn't intermix wouldn't have any semite trace in them
Thank You. Explanation in point #1. I'm right, you're wrong.
3.How in hell would it mean descendants of exiled Jews have become extinct when we're talking about semite-"exiled Jews"-genes among Ashkenazi Jews?- Man you seem to have lost your last remainders of rationality.
Maybe this one went way over your head... as everything else usually does... but I wasn't even implying it... I was just pointing out that your statements made the implication, and I could've have used your train of thought (rather... lack of one) to state how this would also justify somebody saying that the exiled Jews are extinct. Both statements are stupendous... and you're the idiot who made one such implication.
Read my sig. :)
-
lol...Sorry man, this "so called" riddle was an analogy targeted at Jamal. Something to help him get along with reality.Something to point out what happens when you generalize when your generalization entails the contradiction of known/given facts.
Read my sig. You basically exposed yourself. You admit to relying on generalizations rather than facts... but then again, you're a Zionist.. so that's expected. :)
-
Since you're so slow in the head... I'll help you out...
Yeah, the only thing that's contradicted is that they're PRIMARILY descended
Which is the only thing that was debated :) like you said:
The only thing that's debated is if Ashkenazi Jews are PRIMARILY descendant of the Khazars....
MEANING THAT THE ONLY THING THAT'S DEBATED WAS DISPROVED.... 1+1
P.S Non-Jewish groups do not mean Khazar and this is while paternally they still were descendants of exiled Jews(intermix).
1. It is disputed that Ashkenazis are PRIMARILY descendants of Khazars, and the research found that they're not PRIMARILY descendants as previously believed.
2. It was the only thing "debated" by researchers (not us)
3. Then you said it was the only thing disproven... ok fine... so they're not primarily descendants of Khazars. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID AT THE BEGINNING. LOLLLL do you get it now, retard? Why do you even argue if the statements you make basically agree with what I initially stated and only further prove me right. Then you're made to look like fucking idiot... and you come back... with some lame "riddle" to further show how dumb you are.
-
up until they had done this research, it was believed that Ashkenazi Jews were PRIMARILY descendants of this ONE TRIBE (Khazar).
the fact that they're primarily descendants is disputed... which is exactly what I said from the beginning.
So was it disputed or believed? LMAO would you decide?
I just paraphrased the findings of a research and it's conclusion.All you do is making these misguided assumptions about my statements' meanings and implications while addressing your sorry "ad hominem"(look it up son ;D) at me.
P.S Still don't get how Semite genes found among Ashkenazi Jews correlate with the extinction of exiled Jews [I understand that it's your assumption since neither of us claimed this before, (you don't have to bitch about it) but how did you reach it?Based on what?]
-
up until they had done this research, it was believed that Ashkenazi Jews were PRIMARILY descendants of this ONE TRIBE (Khazar).
the fact that they're primarily descendants is disputed... which is exactly what I said from the beginning.
So was it disputed or believed? LMAO would you decide?
I know you Zionists aren't really familiar with research and facts (as evident from my sig), but things are believed and research showing otherwise leads to there being a dispute... or if something is disputed, it is researched... it's not a fact that they're primarily descendants, it's a theory... so therefore it was "generally" believed... meaning there was doubt/dispute... leading to research to a stronger doubt... your problem seems to be not only lack of education in regards to such matters, but you also need a better understanding of terms such as "believe", "fact", "dispute", etc... but being that you're a Zionist, I suggest you focus mainly on the word "fact" because that word seems to be foreign to you guys... do I need to get into what the scientific method is, and the meaning of the word hypothesis, etc? It's evident you're dumb, but you really can't be THIS dumb.
I just paraphrased the findings of a research and it's conclusion.All you do is making these misguided assumptions about my statements' meanings and implications while addressing your sorry "ad hominem"(look it up son ;D) at me.
The argument we had was over the existence of converted Jews. I presented the Khazars as an example, and showed that a proportion of Ashkenazi Jews (which make up the majority of Jews in the world today) are descendants of the Khazars. The only thing that research showed is that the proportion of Ashkenazi Jews being descendants of the Khazars is not as great as previously believed.. since I know you need help, this is implied when the word PRIMARILY was used. This means that my statement was correct, and all you did is argue even though the research just proved me right. What the fuck are you even arguing for?
P.S Still don't get how Semite genes found among Ashkenazi Jews correlate with the extinction of exiled Jews [I understand that it's your assumption since neither of us claimed this before, (you don't have to bitch about it) but how did you reach it?Based on what?]
Your statements implied that the converted Jews were extinct. I simply said that if somebody who's just as dumb as you... or close to being as dumb as you, since you're one of a kind... would use your "theory"... they could easily imply that the exiled Jews are extinct. I said this would be a stupid assumption to make... just as stupid as everything you've said.
-
This is what the argument was... not whether or not Ashkenazi Jews are PRIMARILY descendants of Khazars.... all I stated is that a proportion of them are... which you basically confirmed...
most Jews are descendants of those who were exiled from this land,
Is that fact, or a conclusion you have reached? If you still don't know the difference, then go find out before you answer.
It is a fact, and one that you need to know in order to debate on this matter.
So let me get this straight...
-Most Jews are descendants of the exiled Jews (based on nothing)
-It is a known fact that entire populations converted to Judaism.
-It is a known fact that a majority of Jews are Ashkenazi Jews.
-It is a known fact that a proportion of Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars.
-You stated that "you can't trace how many..." ... ok fine, I'll take that into consideration.. you can't.
-It is a known fact that a proportion of Jews are descendants of converted Jews... you yourself stated that you can't trace how many... so how the hell do you claim it is a FACT that most Jews are descendants of exiled Jews? LOLLLLL SONNED.
Where are the facts?
Perhaps.... GENERALIZATION is a better word to use? Or maybe... ASSUMPTION?
LOLLL @ FACT.
"It's disputed"
"It's a fact"
"You can't trace it"
"It's a fact"
Come on... you've got to be kidding me.
-
I'ma go to sleep now... but give me some entertaining posts filled with your stupidity, so I have something to laugh at tomorrow...
-
things are believed and research showing otherwise leads to there being a dispute
up until they had done this research, it was believed that Ashkenazi Jews were PRIMARILY descendants of this ONE TRIBE (Khazar).
Is it me or is there once again a timeline distortion in your statements...lol
You can't even be consistent with your BS logic escapism.The research in this case was the one to end the dispute while before the research there was a dispute (meaning that it wasn't believed Ashkenazi Jews were primarily descended,before the research, but it was disputed whether they were<<DIFF POINT OUT).
This argument started when one of us(not me ;D) made the claim of Ashkenazi Jews not being "semite"/"descendants of exiled Jews".This is what this research disproves(While proving that even Jews who have "east european genes"\"non-semite genes" still have semite genes in them to go along->making them descendants of exiled Jews).
I'll let Jamal do the talking:
Gotcha. Check the statistics on what proportion of Jews are "Semite-Jews"... and what proportion are Ashkenazi.
^ Aren't mutually exclusive ^
You're a funny clown...lol.
-
You guys really found each other. (http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/Themes/dubcc/images/post/thumbup.gif)
-
This argument started when one of us(not me ;D) made the claim of Ashkenazi Jews not being "semite"/"descendants of exiled Jews".This is what this research disproves(While proving that even Jews who have "east european genes"\"non-semite genes" still have semite genes in them to go along->making them descendants of exiled Jews).
I honestly can't tell if you really are this dumb, or if you're just playing dumb. Go read my posts and reply to them. If you can't, then just ignore them, and I'll explain everything to the special little child again. The argument didn't start because of that you idiot... go check all the posts before that. You made a claim... and it's unfounded. All I did is present the fact that populations have converted, and since you yourself stated that you can't trace how many of them are descendants of who... then it is impossible to MAKE THIS CLAIM. And you even called it a fact. You obviously don't know what a fact is.
most Jews are descendants of those who were exiled from this land,
Is that fact, or a conclusion you have reached? If you still don't know the difference, then go find out before you answer.
It is a fact, and one that you need to know in order to debate on this matter.
The research shows that Ashkenazi Jews aren't primarily descendants of Khazars. Do you know what that means? The fact that some Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars already proves my point. That's the only thing needed to prove me right and you wrong.
-
This is what the argument was... not whether or not Ashkenazi Jews are PRIMARILY descendants of Khazars.... all I stated is that a proportion of them are... which you basically confirmed...
most Jews are descendants of those who were exiled from this land,
Is that fact, or a conclusion you have reached? If you still don't know the difference, then go find out before you answer.
It is a fact, and one that you need to know in order to debate on this matter.
So let me get this straight...
-Most Jews are descendants of the exiled Jews (based on nothing)
-It is a known fact that entire populations converted to Judaism.
-It is a known fact that a majority of Jews are Ashkenazi Jews.
-It is a known fact that a proportion of Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars.
-You stated that "you can't trace how many..." ... ok fine, I'll take that into consideration.. you can't.
-It is a known fact that a proportion of Jews are descendants of converted Jews... you yourself stated that you can't trace how many... so how the hell do you claim it is a FACT that most Jews are descendants of exiled Jews? LOLLLLL SONNED. (IT'S NOT A FACT, YOU RETARD)
Where are the facts?
Perhaps.... GENERALIZATION is a better word to use? Or maybe... ASSUMPTION?
LOLLL @ FACT.
"It's disputed"
"It's a fact"
"You can't trace it"
"It's a fact"
Come on... you've got to be kidding me.
-
You guys really found each other. (http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/Themes/dubcc/images/post/thumbup.gif)
The guy exposes his own stupidity... then hides for a while... and comes back with some lame riddle to further prove how dumb he is. I apologize to the board on his behalf.
-
I know everything might be a little confusing for you... I mean the word fact is all over the place and you don't even know what it means and all... so instead of me proving to you how dumb you are, I'll let you do it yourself... you made this claim...
most Jews are descendants of those who were exiled from this land,
and then you said it's a FACT.
Ok, PROVE IT. Show me that it is FACT. If you can't give me the numbers, then it is not fact... you're wrong, I'm right... this whole thing is over.
-
yes, it's clear that all the boxes are empty.
several reasons:
a) we know that the boxes were locked before the coins were scattered over them. how can the coins get into a locked box?
g) who checked the first four boxes? how do we know that person is honest? if all five coins have already been recovered there can't be any more coins in the other six boxes.
h) there are no coins, and there are no boxes.
For A): what do you mean scattered BEFORE the box were LOCKED. He never mentioned WHEN he gave you the coin.
G): Why do we gotta know who the person is that checked the four boxes. Why would the person lie? 4 boxes were opened and no coins. How can you say that five coins were recovered?
H): What? There are boxes.
-
LMAO
Here I'll make it simple son, this is not something that requires 4 posts from me.
The majority of Jews(including Ashkenazi Jews) are semites, HENCE, descendants of exiled Jews from the land of Yisrael.
Out of the total of Ashkenazi Jews, those who have been tested throughout this research and have been confirmed for non-semite and east European genes(alongside the proportion that wasn't confirmed for non-semite genes), still have Semite genes alongside->making them descendants of exiled Jews from the land of Yisrael.
This research came to the conclusion Ashkenazi Jews do not primarily descend from the Khazar tribe based on these findings. Not on the assumed Khazar genes that were not found and that weren't established as the only genetic component of the Ashkenazi Jews that were tested.
Bottom line, my claim was grounded and was confirmed by this research, yours however, was refuted even further by this research. I can see why though,you don't see how Ashkenazi Jews are also semites- and you have proven this. You should do a research on the evolvement of anti-semitism in Europe.
Gotcha. Check the statistics on what proportion of Jews are "Semite-Jews"... and what proportion are Ashkenazi.
^ Aren't mutually exclusive ^
You really shouldn't be arguing homie after having exposed your insufficient knowledge on the matter.I don't even wanna mention the fact you brought up the (above quoted) claim to establish Ashkenazi Jews have no entitlement to their historical land.
-
Wow you seem to get dumber with each post. Let me go really slow for you...
The majority of Jews(including Ashkenazi Jews) are semites, HENCE, descendants of exiled Jews from the land of Yisrael.
That's not a fact. I can understand... since you don't know what the word fact means, but you have to realize that this isn't one.
- It is estimated that about 80% of Jews are Ashkenazi.
- We both agreed that you don't know what proportion of Ashkenazi are descendants of Khazars.
- The research you quoted from Wikipedia shows that Ashkenazis aren't PRIMARILY descendants of Khazars as was the general belief prior.
- Since the exact number isn't derived... then it is impossible to determine what proportion of Jews are descendants of those exiled.... hence IT IS NOT A FACT THAT MOST JEWS ARE DESCENDANT OF THOSE SENT INTO EXILE.
If you claim it is a fact, then prove it to me. Show me the numbers. If you can't do that, then you are wrong, and I'm right... AS ALWAYS.
-
And let's not forget... this is what you assert gives them claim to the land? LMAO
By the way, do you know that a lot of researchers and scholars believe that the Pashtuns (Afghans) are descendants of one of the Lost Tribes of Israel... and if we were to apply the theory of dumbfucks like you... that means we can come to Israel, steal your fucking land, and make our own country... now how ridiculous does that sound? Zionism is nothing more than a pile of bullshit.
-
The majority of Jews(including Ashkenazi Jews) are semites, HENCE, descendants of exiled Jews from the land of Yisrael.
1.Each Ashkenazi Jew that was tested was confirmed for semite genes, some in addition to their semite genes were also confirmed for east-European genes.
Every Ashkenazi Jew that was tested was in one way or another semite->descendent of exiled Jews. The rest is assumptions. :)
2.East-European does not mean Khazar necessarily. There is no certain Khazar specimen- making this another assumption.
3. Prior to the research it wasn't a consensus among scientists that Ashkenazi Jews primarily descend from this one tribe, it was a disputed hypothesis. Later it was disproved by this research.
4. As this reseach reinforces. An Ashkenazi Jew is also a semite(something you either don't get or choose to disregard). 80% of Ashkenazi Jews only reinforce my point :).
BYE.
-
The majority of Jews(including Ashkenazi Jews) are semites, HENCE, descendants of exiled Jews from the land of Yisrael.
1.Each Ashkenazi Jew that was tested was confirmed for semite genes, some in addition to their semite genes were also confirmed for east-European genes.
Every Ashkenazi Jew that was tested was in one way or another semite->descendent of exiled Jews. The rest is assumptions. :)
2.East-European does not mean Khazar necessarily. There is no certain Khazar specimen- making this another assumption.
3. Prior to the research it wasn't a consensus among scientists that Ashkenazi Jews primarily descend from this one tribe, it was a disputed hypothesis. Later it was disproved by this research.
4. As this reseach reinforces. An Ashkenazi Jew is also a semite(something you either don't get or choose to disregard). 80% of Ashkenazi Jews only reinforce my point :).
BYE.
1. It's not an assumption because it is a known fact that entire populations converted to Judaism. Ex: Khazars.
2. East European does not mean Semite.
3. Yes. Do you understand what that means? It means that it was believed that almost every Ashkenazi Jew was descended from the Khazars... this research only showed that it's not "almost every Ashkenazi". There are no numbers provided, so you can't assume whether it's a majority or not. (What you're doing when you claim your statement is a fact... is you're making an assumption)
4. Some Ashkenazi Jews are Semite... some aren't. There are no numbers. This means that your statement is not a fact. And we know what that means.... yes, yes... once again... I'm right, and you're wrong... what a surprise.
BYE.
-
By the way, do you know that a lot of researchers and scholars believe that the Pashtuns (Afghans) are descendants of one of the Lost Tribes of Israel...
Possible, I remember seeing a documentary about Afghanistan where they said there was one Jew left there and that there is this one tribe that may belong to one of the lost tribes.
Are you a Pashtun? - You're welcome to come to Israel, I'll show you around. I just don't think the kicking off the land thing is gonna happen. It's not like we don't want Arabs on this land as well- we have Arabs on this land, we just don't want terrorists.
-
BYE :wavey:
-
By the way, do you know that a lot of researchers and scholars believe that the Pashtuns (Afghans) are descendants of one of the Lost Tribes of Israel...
Possible, I remember seeing a documentary about Afghanistan where they said there was one Jew left there and that there is this one tribe that may belong to one of the lost tribes.
Are you a Pashtun? - You're welcome to come to Israel, I'll show you around. I just don't think the kicking off the land thing is gonna happen. It's not like we don't want Arabs on this land as well- we have Arabs on this land, we just don't want terrorists.
Coming is one thing. Stealing land and establishing a country that restricts the right of return to the indigenous population is another.
I can also understand not wanting terrorists... the IDF = monopoly. :)
-
East European does not mean Semite.
Who said it does...lol.
All I'm saying is that every Ashkenazi Jew that was tested, whether he did or did not have east-European traces, had semite genes. The rest is an assumption. I didn't say a word about numbers, you're the one talking about numbers. All I said was- those Ashkenazi Jews who were tested had semite genes (sometimes alongside non-semite/east-european genes).
My claim is based on facts and is reinforced by facts.
So Long.
-
Stealing land and establishing a country that restricts the right of return to the indigenous population is another.
I don't know about the IDF, I mean I served in it for 3 years, been to Ramallah,Hebron,Nublus and not once was I ordered to kill innocent people.
I bet Hamas recruits can say the same...oh wait...NO THEY CAN'T.
-
East European does not mean Semite.
Who said it does...lol.
All I'm saying is that every Ashkenazi Jew that was tested, whether he did or did not have east-European traces, had semite genes. The rest is an assumption. I didn't say a word about numbers, you're the one talking about numbers. All I said was- those Ashkenazi Jews who were tested had semite genes (sometimes alongside non-semite/east-european genes).
My claim is based on facts and is reinforced by facts.
So Long.
So it is a known fact that some Jews aren't descendants of those exiled. The only thing we don't know is the number of Jews that are... so when you make a statement saying that most are... and that this is a fact... you have to be able to prove it. If you can't prove it, then it is not a fact. To prove it, since we're talking about numbers, you'd have to present numbers. Since you can't do that, it is not a fact (facts can be proven). And that means you're wrong, and I'm right.... AGAIN. :)
-
So it is a known fact that some Jews aren't descendants of those exiled.
lol This is becoming real philosophical, almost on some chicken and egg shit. Thing is that the above quoted phrase is not known for a fact. Yes it is known that the Khazar tribe converted.Yes it is known that some Ashkenazi Jews have more than just semite genes. What is not known is whether you can present a Jewish person (Not a convert- a Gior) and show that he has absolutely no semite linkage whatsoever(The massive convertion of Khazars doesn't prove anything otherwise, because an intermix would make a Jew descendant of both semites and non semites). The moment you do that, only then,can we talk about numbers. As long as the researches that have been conducted prove that every Ashkenazi Jew tested is confirmed for semite genes, you have no case, only assumptions.
-
So it is a known fact that some Jews aren't descendants of those exiled.
lol This is becoming real philosophical, almost on some chicken and egg shit. Thing is that the above quoted phrase is not known for a fact. Yes it is known that the Khazar tribe converted.Yes it is known that some Ashkenazi Jews have more than just semite genes. What is not known is whether you can present a Jewish person (Not a convert- a Gior) and show that he has absolutely no semite linkage whatsoever(The massive convertion of Khazars doesn't prove anything otherwise, because an intermix would make a Jew descendant of both semites and non semites). The moment you do that, only then,can we talk about numbers. As long as the researches that have been conducted prove that every Ashkenazi Jew tested is confirmed for semite genes, you have no case, only assumptions.
1. It's not philosophical at all. It involves two things... two things foreign to Zionists, yet two very important things... common sense and facts. It is a known fact that entire populations converted.
2. I know you're a Zionist, but once again we have to deal with facts and figures... don't be scared.. they're not as scary as you guys make them seem to be. First let's use the word "research" because there was only one presented... not "researches". Then check the size of the sample, and compare it to the population of Ashkenazi Jews (approx 80% of about 14 million?... that's about 11 million people!)... LOLL.
3. See let's take a look at this... before you embarass yourself again (claiming that I rely on generalizations.. LOLLL read my sig ;) ).... you claim I'm making assumptions. I'm saying we can't make assumptions because there are no facts and figures... you say "well some people were tested"... you disregard that there are about 11 million Ashkenazi Jews... and ASSUME that MOST of them are descendants of Semites. I'm avoiding the assumptions... you're making them. If you're not making an assumption... then present some evidence to back up and prove your "fact".
This is kind of sad and funny at the same time... I really feel sorry for you... and other people like you... especially Zionists...
lol This is becoming real philosophical, almost on some chicken and egg shit.
It's sad to see that facts are so foreign to you that when you're presented with them or asked to prove one... this is how you feel. LOLLLLLLLL
-
So it is a known fact that some Jews aren't descendants of those exiled.
When someone defines himself as an Arab we understand that his ethnic origin is the Arab peninsula. When we define someone as a Russian we understand his ethnic origin is Russia.
When we define someone as a Jew we understand his ethnic origin is Judea. Being a Jew does not always/only mean following Judaism(A made up term for the Abrahamic religion), it is a signification of ethnic and geographic origin(This is one of the reasons to why converts are not defined as Jews in the Halacha but as Goirs, usually done to wed\intermix with a Jew- The offspring will be considered a Jew). When one wishes to disprove this singnification as valid, one needs at least one specimen to support the theory. Bottom line, it is NOT known for a fact that some Ashkenazi Jews aren't semites\descendants of those exiled. The research showes that those Ashkenazi Jews who were tested had all semite origins in one way or another, thus reinforcing the singnification of origin-> to stop the research from coming to a conclusion such as "Ashkenazi Jews do not primarily descend from the Khazar tribe" a researcher would need at least one Ashkenazi Jew that would lack semite genes completely.
-
So it is a known fact that some Jews aren't descendants of those exiled.
When someone defines himself as an Arab we understand that his origin is the Arab peninsula. When we define someone as a Russian we understand his origin is Russia.
When we define someone as a Jew we understand his origin is Judea. Being a Jew does not always/only mean following Judaism(A made up term for the Abrahamic religion), it is a signification of ethnic and geographic origin(This is one of the reasons to why converts are not defined as Jews in the Halacha but as Goirs, usually done to wed\intermix with a Jew- The offspring will be considered a Jew). When one wishes to disprove this singnification as valid, one needs at least one specimen to support the theory. Bottom line, it is NOT known for a fact that some Jews aren't semites\descendants of those exiled. The research showes that those Ashkenazi Jews who were tested had all semite origins in one way or another, thus reinforcing the singnification of origin-> to stop the research from coming to a conclusion such as "Ashkenazi Jews do not primarily descend from the Khazar tribe" a researcher would need at least one Ashkenazi Jew that would lack semite genes completely.
You have just proven to us how ignorant you really are.
When someone defines himself as an Arab, it doesn't necessarily mean he's from the Arab peninsula. People in Morocco may consider themselves Arab, even if none of their ancestors are from the "Arab peninsula". It's not black and white... people may define themselves based on a common culture, language, etc.
A Jew doesn't necessarily have to be from Judea. Were the Khazars not Jews? :)
The fact of the matter is there are no numbers, so it is impossible for one to make an assumption... which is what you did. What is a known fact is that there are converts, including entire populations who converted. Also, if research shows they're of Middle Eastern origin... that also doesn't necessarily mean they're descendants of those exiled... because then you would be making ANOTHER assumption... that no people in the Middle East converted.
-
Your claim: Most Jews are descendants of those exiled.
You state this is a fact.
Ok, prove it. There are about 14 million Jews... if you show me facts and figures proving that at least 50% of those are what you say they are... then you're right. If you can't, then it's not a fact.
:)
-
Guilty untill proven innocent or innocent untill proven guilty.
I guess now I know which one of these you favour^......lol
I wasn't the one to question Jewish ethnic origin, you were the one who claimed Ashkenazi Jews were in no way semites. You made the ungrounded claim, so you have to prove it.
So far, the default option was reinforced by this specimen research, meaning your claim was refuted->Tested Ashkenazi Jews were all semites in one way or another.
P.S I'm sorry that you don't see the diff between origin and ethnic origin, might be my fault.
-
Also, if research shows they're of Middle Eastern origin... that also doesn't necessarily mean they're descendants of those exiled... because then you would be making ANOTHER assumption... that no people in the Middle East converted.
So Middle Eastern origin doesn't make people entitled to live somewhere in the Middle East?- GOOD TO KNOW, this could have saved us a lot of time. ;D
-
Also, if research shows they're of Middle Eastern origin... that also doesn't necessarily mean they're descendants of those exiled... because then you would be making ANOTHER assumption... that no people in the Middle East converted.
So Middle Eastern origin doesn't make people entitled to live somewhere in the Middle East?- GOOD TO KNOW, this could have saved us a lot of time. ;D
You claimed they were exiled so therefore have claim to the land. If they're converted.. then there goes your claim. In addition, like you said.. you can't trace all of them.
AND... there were Jews living in Palestine prior to the arrival of Zionist terrorists. Are you implying because someone is from a "region" they're entitled to go anywhere in that region because there used to be people of the same religion living there... then kill the indigenous people, steal their land, and establish a country? LOL. You're right.. this really could have saved a lot of time.
-
Guilty untill proven innocent or innocent untill proven guilty.
I guess now I know which one of these you favour^......lol
We're not talking about victims and suspects here... unless you believe that being Jewish is a flaw.
I wasn't the one to question Jewish ethnic origin, you were the one who claimed Ashkenazi Jews were in no way semites. You made the ungrounded claim, so you have to prove it.
Nope. I said that some Jews are descendants of converted people. I gave the Khazars as an example. There are also people in Yemen, Oman, etc. If you can't prove that most Jews are descendants of those exiled... then just admit it, and don't call it a fact, since it isn't one.. if it were, you'd be able to prove it.
So far, the default option was reinforced by this specimen research, meaning your claim was refuted->Tested Ashkenazi Jews were all semites in one way or another.
How many were tested?
How many Ashkenazi Jews are there?
Then look at the ratio, and realize that you're an idiot.
P.S I'm sorry that you don't see the diff between origin and ethnic origin, might be my fault.
I'm sorry that you don't know what the word fact means, but I don't blame you... you're a Zionist
-
You make a claim and state it's a fact.
I ask you to prove it.
You can't.
I win. You lose.
8)
-
So Middle Eastern origin doesn't make people entitled to live somewhere in the Middle East?- GOOD TO KNOW, this could have saved us a lot of time. ;D
So you agree that Palestinian refugees, including the Arabs who listed themselves as refugees, should be allowed to come and live in Israel? ;D 8)
OWNED.
You can go take another break... then come back with another retarded "riddle"... lolll you fucking idiot.
-
If they're converted.. then there goes your claim.
"IF" is an assumption. But "if" we're assuming(As you have requested) that other semites converted to Judaism before the exile then they're still exiled Jews, according to you.
You are the one talking about Palestinian Refugees' right of return, only because some of them may have inhabited certain parts of Israel years ago. You're selective in your principles when it comes to the destruction of a state, the existence of which, you loath. Their return would end Israel's existence as a Jewish-Democratic State. This is the intention of those who support this. How can you say you don't want Israel of the world's map? lol...You can't bend priniciples when it suits you, that's why they are called principles.
Exiled Jews had nowhere to go, these Arab refugees had a number of Arab national states and they left because of the aggression of these states.
-
If they're converted.. then there goes your claim.
"IF" is an assumption. But "if" we're assuming(As you have requested) that other semites converted to Judaism before the exile then they're still exiled Jews, according to you.
You are the one talking about Palestinian Refugees' right of return, only because some of them may have inhabited a certain part of Israel years ago. You're selective in your principles when it comes to the destruction of a state, the existence of which, you loath. Their return would end Israel's existence as a Jewish-Democratic State. This is the intention of those who support this. How can you say you don't want Israel of the wor'd map? lol...You can't bend priniciples when it suits you, that's why they are called principles.
Exiled Jews had nowhere to go, these Arab refugees had a number of Arab national states and they left because of the aggression of these states.
We were talking about people of Middle Eastern origin... and the "if" statement was in regards to people that converted after the exile.
I'm selective? LOLLLL I'm using your statement. You said people of Middle Eastern origin should have the right to live in the Middle East... ok, so Palestinian refugees, Arabs in the Middle East, etc... should be able to go to Israel and live there. But YOUR selectivity in your principles implies that this can't be because there would no longer be a Jewish majority. You could onsider it the Arab Muslim version of Zionism.
LOLLLL... first you say I'm fond of generalizations then you make the retarded statement in my sig where you expose yourself as the fucking idiot that you are... then you say the same thing about assumptions, and you go on to do all of the assuming... now you say I'm selective, when all I did is quote you.. but then you present your selectivity. Don't try to push your fuck-ups on others... you're the only retard here.
-
You make a claim and state it's a fact.
I ask you to prove it.
You can't.
I win. You lose.
8)
-
You said people of Middle Eastern origin should have the right to live in the Middle East...
Yep, both Arabs and Jews(Or anyone else for the matter, I don't see why human beings shouldn't be able to live anywhere they want in the world. The only barrier is people who have other things in mind). One catch though, Arab regimes aren't really fond of this sort of globalization. And as you know they don't uphold human rights and democracy, so it's a problem. I would love to see a world with no borders where everyone would live in peace. We both know it's not the way it is right now.
-
You said people of Middle Eastern origin should have the right to live in the Middle East...
Yep, both Arabs and Jews(Or anyone else for the matter, I don't see why human beings shouldn't be able to live anywhere they want in the world. The only barrier is people who have other things in mind). One catch though, Arab regimes aren't really fond of this sort of globalization. And as you know they don't uphold human rights and democracy, so it's a problem. I would love to see a world with no borders where everyone would live in peace. We both know it's not the way it is right now.
Ok, but Palestinian refugees not be allowed to return to their homes Israel...?
You're selective in your principles
That's all that needs to be said.
-
Arabs live in Israel. Jews are not allowed to live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza according to international law. Who's selective?
-
Arabs live in Israel. Jews are not allowed to live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza according to international law. Who's selective?
The Jews say they have claim to the land because they were exiled.
The Israelis deny the Palestinian refugees to return.
The Israelis are being selective.
Living & Illegal Occupation are not the same thing... unless you're a Zionist.
Israelis are denying Palestinians their universal right to return home, and what the Israelis are doing in the occupied territories is ILLEGAL under International Law.
-
1.Palestinian refugees weren't exiled
2.Return of refugees would contrast Jewish claim to the land.
3.Israel does not prohibit Arab inhabitation as long as it doesn't contrast it's existence.
4.International law prohibits Jewish inhabitance of Judea and Samaria while allowing Arab inhabitance of Israel, and Judea and Samaria.
Hence, the international law is being selective as is the Palestinian Authority.
-
1.Palestinian refugees weren't exiled
2.Return of refugees would contrast Jewish claim to the land.
3.Israel does not prohibit Arab inhabitation as long as it doesn't contrast it's existence.
4.International law prohibits Jewish inhabitance of Judea and Samaria while allowing Arab inhabitance of Israel, and Judea and Samaria.
Hence, the international law is being selective as is the Palestinian Authority.
So Middle Eastern origin doesn't make people entitled to live somewhere in the Middle East?- GOOD TO KNOW, this could have saved us a lot of time. ;D
Yep, both Arabs and Jews(Or anyone else for the matter, I don't see why human beings shouldn't be able to live anywhere they want in the world.
1. So the claim to the land was based on the fact that they were exiled thousands of years ago? Does that even matter? The fact that they're refugees doesn't give them the right to return to their homes? Interesting.
2. Contrast Jewish claim? What claim? "God gave it to us" ? LOL.
3. Contrast its existence? Israel can exist. Oh, it has to restrict certain people from living there... kinda contradicts your statements quoted above, but ok... Zionism is full of contradictions.
4. International law restricts illegal occupation of territories.
-
will the madness ever end ? i wonder if you could ever come to an agreement...
-
1.Yes it is based on the fact they were exiled as well. Among other things.
2.No, I meant that it would end Israel's existence.
3.Freedom- Allowes you to do anything untill you compromise someone elses freedom<Does it contradict itself? If Israel has the right to exist, if this something you accept, the return of Palestinian refugees would end its existence.
4.International Law defines what is legal and what is illegal< Selective by definition
-
1.Yes it is based on the fact they were exiled as well. Among other things.
2.No, I meant that it would end Israel's existence.
3.Freedom- Allowes you to do anything untill you compromise someone elses freedom<Does it contradict itself? If Israel has the right to exist, if this something you accept, the return of Palestinian refugees would end its existence.
4.International Law defines what is legal and what is illegal< Selective by definition
1. Haganah, Irgun, Stern, etc... Al-Abbasiyya, Beit Daras, Bir Al-Saba, Al-Kabri, Haifa, Qisarya,etc.
Then Palestinians have the right to return. Thanks for agreeing.
International law: refugees have the right to return to their homes of origin, receive real property restitution, and compensation for loss and damages. Resolution 3236 made the right of return an inalienable right.
2 & 3. No, it wouldn't end Israel's existence... it would just end its Jewish nature in existence. That's ok...
So Middle Eastern origin doesn't make people entitled to live somewhere in the Middle East?- GOOD TO KNOW, this could have saved us a lot of time. ;D
Yep, both Arabs and Jews(Or anyone else for the matter, I don't see why human beings shouldn't be able to live anywhere they want in the world.
Thanks for the contradiction.
4. "International Law defines what is legal and what is illegal. < Selective by definition"
LMFAO. Another display of utter stupidity by our fellow Zionist.
It defines what is legal and illegal for everyone. The right of refugees to return to their homes is an inalienable right... it's EVERYBODY'S right. How is that selective? Are you really this dumb?
Let's look at some more examples of "selectivity" according to you...
"We're allowed to drive past a green light, but not a red one" < Selective
"We're not allowed to kill" < Selective
"My government says I can't steal" < Selective
You get the point... you're an idiot.
-
You seem to be talking to yourself being that you have disregarded my entire statement.
1.I was talking about Jews not about the refugees.
2&3.Ending it's Jewish nature would mean the end of it's existence. Israel is a Jewish democratic state. If Jews wanted to settle for being persecuted within totalitarian Arab regimes or in Europe there would be no Israel. As long as Jews are being persecuted because of their ethnic origin a Jewish state needs to exist.
4. lol For Everyone....these are the key words....What we see in reality is how certain laws are only applied to Jews while they are not being applied to Arabs.
You should be clear on the diff between International Law and regular law. International law-Customs, Treaties, agreements and rules that govern relations among nations.
If international law had been applied to the Arab world the way it is applied to Israel's defensive actions (In a legitimate response to terrorist aggression) you'd see hundreds of resolutions against Palestinian use and condonation of terrorism which are in no way defensive but are TARGETED at civilians. From that last site you hooked us up with we could see the Palestinian side was not charged with a single resolution, now isn't this the definition of selective?
-
You seem to be talking to yourself being that you have disregarded my entire statement.
1.I was talking about Jews not about the refugees.
2&3.Ending it's Jewish nature would mean the end of it's existence. Israel is a Jewish democratic state. If Jews wanted to settle for being persecuted within totalitarian Arab regimes or in Europe there would be no Israel. As long as Jews are being persecuted because of their ethnic origin a Jewish state needs to exist.
4. lol For Everyone....these are the key words....What we see in reality is how certain laws are only applied to Jews while they are not being applied to Arabs.
You should be clear on the diff between International Law and regular law. International law-Customs, Treaties, agreements and rules that govern relations among nations.
If international law had been applied to the Arab world the way it is applied to Israel's defensive actions (In a legitimate response to terrorist aggression) you'd see hundreds of resolutions against Palestinian use and condonation of terrorism which are in no way defensive but are TARGETED at civilians. From that last site you hooked us up with we could see the Palestinian side was not charged with a single resolution, now isn't this the definition of selective?
1. Exactly because there's no way to defend a country that chooses to ignore a people's right to return.
2. This contradicts your quoted statements above.
3. There is no Palestinian nation... they're occupied territories. Do you want resolutions against civlians? By the way... check what International Law says about fighting an illegal occupation.
-
So there is no Palestinian nation now lol...this is great, you finally admit it. It's funny that there is Palestinian nationalism while there isn't a Palestinian nation though. Easier to see the ploy now? Would you call Hamas civilians? Maybe the Jihad or the PLO are civilians?
The UN is in support of this ploy therefore you get these double standard resolutions.
Nothing is being contradicted, if we lived in a world that didn't persecute people because of their origin we could do without borders and live anywhere we wanted, currently this is not the case.
-
So there is no Palestinian nation now lol...this is great, you finally admit it. It's funny that there is Palestinian nationalism while there isn't a Palestinian nation though. Easier to see the ploy now? Would you call Hamas civilians? Maybe the Jihad or the PLO are civilians?
The UN is in support of this ploy therefore you get these double standard resolutions.
Nothing is being contradicted, if we lived in a world that didn't persecute people because of their origin we could do without borders and live anywhere we wanted, currently this is not the case.
Nationalism can exist prior to the existence of an actual sovereign state... and it's often one of the running motives for the establishment of one... just in the same way that Zionism existed before the establishment of Israel...
Do you really mean to tell me that you consider "the West Bank" and the "Gaza Strip" a sovereign state? LOL... I guess if you're a Zionist that is the same thing as "ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED TERRITORIES".
Your statements are in complete contradiction. You believe people should live wherever they choose... you say people of Middle Eastern origin should be allowed to live anywhere in the Middle East... yet you say that Palestinians should not be allowed to return to their homes. Now tell me that I'm selective in my principles. Not only are you quite dumb and ignorant, you're also a hypocrite.
-
J you seem to have a problem.
1.We weren't even talking about sovereign states, we were talking about the Palestinian nation- as in people. May I remind you that you have just said it doesn't exist, not me-YOU!
You also haven't answered whether you view Hamas, Jihad and PLO as civilians?...lol
2.The fact the West Bank and Gaza aren't formally regarded as a state or as states is not because of Israel. Do you remember who was the one to declare Israel and on what portion of the land?
3.I believe that in a world with no racial hatred people could live anywhere they wanted. As you may have heared this is not the world we are living in today.
Do you see the distinction between the desirable and the available now?
P.S
The only contradiction here is you being able to type without a brain.
-
J you seem to have a problem.
1.We weren't even talking about sovereign states, we were talking about the Palestinian nation- as in people. May I remind you that you have just said it doesn't exist, not me-YOU!
You also haven't answered whether you view Hamas, Jihad and PLO as civilians?...lol
2.The fact the West Bank and Gaza aren't formally regarded as a state or as states is not because of Israel. Do you remember who was the one to declare Israel and on what portion of the land?
3.I believe that in a world with no racial hatred people could live anywhere they wanted. As you may have heared this is not the world we are living in today.
Do you see the distinction between the desirable and the available now?
P.S
The only contradiction here is you being able to type without a brain.
I was referring to nation as in nation-state... an established country... not "a people"... if you were able to comprehend simple English, you would know that because I said there was no Palestinian nation and used the contrast of describing the lands as occupied territories... how you made the parallel of territory to "a people" rather than what it is, also doesn't come as a surprise because you're as dumb as they get
So the fact that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank is not Israel's fault? LOL.. yeah, okay... you're a bright one.
Yeah... so you believe that Jews should be able to take the land and make it their own, and the people kicked off shouldn't be allowed to return... Zionism is great... and you're a genius.... the sky is pink.
And you should be the last person speaking on intelligence... if you want proof, take a look at my sig. LOLLL typical Zionist retard
-
LMAO ;D
The Palestinians aren't a Nation, International Law applies to relations among Nations ERGO International Law doesn't apply to the Palestinians.
This is what you have just said.
The fact West Bank and Gaza haven't been proclaimed as a state has nothing to do with Israel. Israel itself was proclaimed under threats of war and on a very small portion of the land. In fact things are much more stable for the Palestinian Authority right now than they were for Israel when it was declared.
PS.
Jamal, if you don't see how a specimen research not showing certain findings doesn't imply these findings aren't possible under different demographics, there's not much I can do to help you.
-
i wonder if anyone bothered reading their bickering ? dudes should just pm eachother...
-
LMAO ;D
The Palestinians aren't a Nation, International Law applies to relations among Nations ERGO International Law doesn't apply to the Palestinians.
This is what you have just said.
The fact West Bank and Gaza haven't been proclaimed as a state has nothing to do with Israel. Israel itself was proclaimed under threats of war and on a very small portion of the land. In fact things are much more stable for the Palestinian Authority right now than they were for Israel when it was declared.
PS.
Jamal, if you don't see how a specimen research not showing certain findings doesn't imply these findings aren't possible under different demographics, there's not much I can do to help you.
You think the Occupied Territories are in the same position as Israel was when it was declared? And Israel has nothing to do with it? LOLLL yeah.... they're just ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING the land. You are getting dumber by the minute.
-
Israel has nothing to do with them not being proclaimed as states. Israel was in a tougher position, you're right!
-
Israel has nothing to do with them not being proclaimed as states. Israel was in a tougher position, you're right!
Israel has nothing to do with there not being a Palestinian state? You have hit an all-time low.
-
Israel has nothing to do with a Palestinian State not being declared! Remember under which circumstances Israel was declared!
As for the existence of such a state, the Arab world has much more to do with it than Israel.
-
Israel has nothing to do with a Palestinian State not being declared! Remember under which circumstances Israel was declared!
As for the existence of such a state, the Arab world has much more to do with it than Israel.
From nothing to relatively little. Thank you for that.
So one group of people stealing about 80% of another's land has nothing to do with their state being established? You're a moron.
-
stealing...lol@at your choice of words.
Israel has nothing to do with a Palestinian state not being declared.
The Arab states have more to do with a Palestinian state not being established( than Israel)!
Do you see the diff between established and declared?
-
theres no coins left in the boxes becuase i took em all
-
stealing...lol@at your choice of words.
Israel has nothing to do with a Palestinian state not being declared.
The Arab states have more to do with a Palestinian state not being established( than Israel)!
Do you see the diff between established and declared?
Do you see the difference between 20% and 100%?
Zionists currently occupy about 80% of Palestine.
You think all Palestinians are satisfied with just having their country established on the 20% left to them when not too long ago, before the Zionists stole the land, they had the whole 100% to live on...?
And those driven out are NOT ALLOWED TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMES. Get that through your head.
-
Most of those who left in 47-49 were ready to give up their right to a national home (which was granted to them by the partition plan) and assist the Arab States in the elimination of the Jewish State through their departure. Back when they left they could have most of what today is Israel and then some more, according to this same partition plan- the one they chose not to accept. Now this you need to get, they had most of what today is Israel+they had Zionist consent to the agreement that granted them territorial superiority, my questions are- WHY WASN'T A BIG PALESTINIAN STATE DECLARED? WHY WAS A MUCH SMALLER JEWISH STATE DECLARED?
See the answer to these questions has nothing to do with the choice of the majority of those who left. The ones who had choice were their self proclaimed leaders that chose to cooperate with the Arab States, and of course the leaders of the Arab States themselves<<<The Reason To Why There Isn't a Palestinian State. Their leadership didn't want such state to be declared back then, hence no Palestinian State had been established. Same thing goes on today and it will continue for as long as the Palestinian People are being fucked by their pseudo-leadership.
-
Most of those who left in 47-49 were ready to give up their right to a national home (which was granted to them by the partition plan) and assist the Arab States in the elimination of the Jewish State through their departure. Back when they left they could have most of what today is Israel and then some more, according to this same partition plan- the one they chose not to accept. Now this you need to get, they had most of what today is Israel+they had Zionist consent to the agreement that granted them territorial superiority, my questions are- WHY WASN'T A BIG PALESTINIAN STATE DECLARED? WHY WAS A MUCH SMALLER JEWISH STATE DECLARED?
See the answer to these questions has nothing to do with the choice of the majority of those who left. The ones who had choice were their self proclaimed leaders that chose to cooperate with the Arab States, and of course the leaders of the Arab States themselves<<<The Reason To Why There Isn't a Palestinian State. Their leadership didn't want such state to be declared back then, hence no Palestinian State had been established. Same thing goes on today and it will continue for as long as the Palestinian People are being fucked by their pseudo-leadership.
They didn't want the Zionists to have any of the stolen land.
Nothing you say will justify the denial of the Palestinians' right to return home.
-
leave it to the middle eastern kids to turn this into a pissing contest about jews and muslims ::)
-
leave it to the middle eastern kids to turn this into a pissing contest about jews and muslims ::)
This isn't about Jews and Muslims.
It's about Europeans colonizing land, killing the indigenous population, driving it off the land, and not allowing it to return.
-
They didn't want the Zionists to have any of the stolen land.
So they left the remaining majority of the land, thus granting Zionists more land, only to stop the Zionists from having any of it?.....lol Perfect Logic.
-
They didn't want the Zionists to have any of the stolen land.
So they left the remaining majority of the land, thus granting Zionists more land, only to stop the Zionists from having any of it?.....lol Perfect Logic.
Yeah... they "just left"... Zionist terrorism and massacres had nothing to do with it....
Stern Gang....Lehi, Irgun, Haganah...?
-
Yea like the massacare of Jews in Hebron. Groups like Irgun didn't target civilians, they targeted those who were killing Jews and those who supported the murder of Jews (Brits). Palestinian terrorists as always were targeting every Jew they could get their hands on.
-
Yea like the massacare of Jews in Hebron. Groups like Irgun didn't target civilians, they targeted those who were killing Jews and those who supported the murder of Jews (Brits). Palestinian terrorists as always were targeting every Jew they could get their hands on.
Are you honestly saying that the Zionist terrorist groups never had Palestinian civilians as their targets?
There's no point in arguing with you if you're going to continue rejecting facts.
The European Jews were on the offensive trying to steal the land.. the native Palestinian people were defending THEIR land.
-
That's exactly why those weren't terrorist groups. Because of the FACT they didn't TARGET civilians. Meanwhile, Palestinian Terrorist groups are terrorist because they target civilians.
Again, you don't have to target a civilian to kill a civilian. As you know wars often bring death upon civilians, accidentally, due to coercion. Intention, however, is a question of agenda. Palestinian Terrorist Groups formally carry the agenda of killing Jews, regardless of the cooperation of Jews with military power structures. This is the agenda the first Palestinian Terrorists had as well. This is the Agenda they have carried out for years.
Zionists, while some were more moderate and others more radical, had as their primary goal the creation and establishment of a Jewish national home: including many debates on social-economic considerations regarding the future state.The primary goal of Palestinian terrorist groups is not the establishment of a Palestinian state, their primary goal is the systematic killing and physical removal of Jews. Palestinian terrorist groups that hide under the flag of self-determination do not carry a single social-economic agenda for the future Palestinian State. In fact, the original Palestinian Terrorists and their supporters, in the Arab world, were the ones to destroy the opportunity for the creation of a Palestinian State (On most of the territory Israel has nowdays, partition plan ), proving yet again territory is only an excuse for terrorism- IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER.
Zionism and Terrorism are not symmetrical or analogical in anyway. However, Palestinian self-determination, had become synonymous with terrorism thanks to Palestinian Terrorist groups, and Palestinian leadership that supports the actions of terrorist groups had contributed to this misconception as well.
Zionism by definition is a liberation movement. It is based on the equal right of nations for self-determination. As I have shown before there were Arab leaders that recongnized this, like Faisal.
FACT-Zionism recognized Palestinian right for self-determination and to a state of their own, back in 47.
FACT-PLO recognized Jewish right to a state only in 92.
When facts are shown it's hard not to see the truth, unless of course, you don't want to see it.
-
That's exactly why those weren't terrorist groups. Because of the FACT they didn't TARGET civilians.
1. Palestinian people were massacred. Example: Deir Yassin. In addition, there were many Irgun attacks on Palestinian civilians. It is a known fact.
2. You're a liar.
Israel was founded on terrorism.
-
This proves how little you know. In Deir Yasin, it was a battle, read something other than Anti-Israeli propaganda.
-
This proves how little you know. In Deir Yasin, it was a battle, read something other than Anti-Israeli propaganda.
Yes everytime Palestinian civilians die.. it's either a battle or "collateral damage". Talk about propaganda. You have no room to talk about propaganda when you're from Israel.. your country was founded on it alongside terrorism by the Zionist terrorist groups.
-
So are you denying it was a battle? ;D
-
Plan Dalet?
Begin himself stated that "Deir Yassin was captured with the knowledge of the Haganah and with the approval of its commander" as a part of its "plan for establishing an airfield."
Battle? The Zionists coming to kill Palestinians and steal their land... and Palestinians defending themselves... makes it a battle instead of a massacre in your eyes... ok... then Palestinians carrying out suicide attacks is also part of "a battle".
Women and children were systematically murdered. Your empty head has been filled with so much bullshit, it's unbelievable how ignorant you are to historical facts.
Anyways... I'm not gonna argue with an idiot anymore due to your lack of knowledge, your ignorance, and the fact that you lack common sense.
Enjoy your food at the falafel stands... watch out for the bearded guy running at you.
-
Samuel Katz:
"When the onslaught of the local Arabs had been in progress for over four months, and a month before the planned invasion by the seven Arab states, about half the population still remained in the area mapped out by the United Nations as the Jewish state. Now began the fantastic phase of the exodus. A large part of the population panicked. Suddenly the countryside was filled with rumours and alleged reports of Jewish "atrocities." A highly coloured report of a battle near Jerusalem became the driving theme. At the village of Dir Yassin, one of the bases of the Arab forces maintaining pressure on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road, an assault by the "dissident" Irgun Zvai Leumi and the FFI (Stern Group) had continued for eight hours before the village was finally captured, and then only with the help of a Palmach3 armoured car, which arrived on the scene unexpectedly. The element of surprise having been lost, the Arab soldiers could turn every house in the village into a fortress. Jewish casualties amounted to one third of the attacking force (40 out of 120). The Arabs, barricading themselves in the houses, had omitted to evacuate women and children, many of whom were thus killed during the attack.
The Arab leaders seized on the opportunity to tell an utterly fantastic story of a "massacre," which was disseminated throughout the world by all the arms of British propaganda. The accepted "orthodox" version to this day, it has served enemies of Israel and anti-Semites faithfully."
"The Arab leaders seized on the opportunity to tell an utterly fantastic story of a `massacre,' which was disseminated throughout the world by all the arms of British propaganda. The accepted `orthodox' version to this day, it has served enemies of Israel and anti-Semites faithfully." I have dealt in depth with the Dir Yassin libel in "Days of Fire" (NY, 1968). The Zionist establishment of 1948, in its eagerness to blacken the dissident underground, helped the libel along. Only years later did the Israeli Foreign Office correct the record (in "Israel's Struggle for Peace," Israeli Office of Information - 1960) and in an extensive statement entitled "Dir Yassin," published on March 16, 1969. "The Jews never intended to hurt the population of the village but were forced to do so after they met hostile fire from the population which killed the Irgun commander." -- Arab eyewitness account and is a stunning refutation of the libel. On the fifth anniversary of the battle, Yunes Ahmed Assad of Dir Yassin wrote in the Jordan daily, Al Urdun (April 9, 1953) and covered in New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949 - And the first part (above) from Samuel Katz in "Battleground..."
IN FACT YOU CAN SKIP THE FACTS^^^, YOU CAN RUN OUT OF THIS THREAD AND REMAIN BRAINWASHED, OR YOU CAN CHECK OUT THE AGENDA OF THE LEADERS OF THE PALESTINIAN "FIGHT" FOR SELF-DETERMINATION:
"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity.... 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)
PPERFECT CLEARITY^
To think you'd go as far as openly disregarding historical facts just to maintain your misconception.