naomiglover Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 The Argies want the falklands back ....now off you go...on the mark, get set..GOOGLE Another nonsensical comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 Another nonsensical comparison. It's only nonsensical cause you can't answer it...like terrorists using ambulances..you are faced with the choice of accepting the evidence or sticking your fingers in your ear and going nyahh nyahh nyahh.... So what about the Kuril islands? Japan wants them back...what anout the falklands? Argentina wants them back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 It's only nonsensical cause you can't answer it...like terrorists using ambulances..you are faced with the choice of accepting the evidence or sticking your fingers in your ear and going nyahh nyahh nyahh.... So what about the Kuril islands? Japan wants them back...what anout the falklands? Argentina wants them back... Nonsensical because people on the Falklands are not kept in an open air prison. There isn't a humanitarian crisis. How many people live on the Kuril islands exactly? International law has clearly stated Israel's border, whereas, nothing has been determined about your 2 examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Nonsensical because people on the Falklands are not kept in an open air prison. There isn't a humanitarian crisis. How many people live on the Kuril islands exactly? International law has clearly stated Israel's border, whereas, nothing has been determined about your 2 examples. Japan has claerly stated borders...so does argentina... The Japanese residents of the islands were deported...now only former soviets live there....but you seem to be okay with this...why? not enough jews to warrant mock outrage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCMan Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) your cute. how are you doing?you avoid the whole forum when you know you are losing.I dont undertand why yo have to use the anti-jew argument all the time. This is a template used by many Pro-Israeli: -Calling you a Muslim/Islamist/Racist/Anti-Semite for saying a bad word about Israel. -Trying to make you hate anything but them like Muslims or any other nation which is not Israel or even portraying Israel as the 'lesser' evil if losing. - Ridiculing your arguments and when you are speaking the truth words like 'propaganda' or 'conspiracy theory' will appear. Nukes - Trying to portray Israel as an advanced technologically/military land with tradition not run by religious extremists. -Redefining the definition of international laws to justify arguments -calling you an ass -undermining the importance of international treaties to justify their refusal. NPT -Making other nations look biased towards Israel to justify the refusal for an international probe. D'oh! Edited June 10, 2010 by BCMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomiglover Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Japan has claerly stated borders...so does argentina... The Japanese residents of the islands were deported...now only former soviets live there....but you seem to be okay with this...why? not enough jews to warrant mock outrage? Again, a bad comparison. However, for the sake of argument, they should all abide by international law and agreements. What do you think of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Again, a bad comparison. However, for the sake of argument, they should all abide by international law and agreements. What do you think of that? I think hell will freeze over before you start a bazillion threads on the issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) We get it BC2004. You don't care for morality, the law and justice. You just cheer for the team that has the biggest guns. I don't think you "get it" at all. "Morality" is the furthest thing from your mind in what is clearly a political, not humanitarian agenda. Go protest in Ottawa for unsettled land claims, then you will be ready to drip your brand of "morality" on another nation doing the same. Edited June 10, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) I don't think you "get it" at all. "Morality" is the furthest thing from your mind in what is clearly a political, not humanitarian agenda. Go protest in Ottawa for unsettled land claims, then you will be ready to drip your brand of "morality" on another nation doing the same. This is really it? What your position is reduced to? F****** sad. Edited February 10, 2016 by Michael Hardner profanity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 I think hell will freeze over before you start a bazillion threads on the issue... But Naomi will call the Falklands...Las Malvinas...Y'know...Because Galtieri was such a peace loving,misunderstood democrat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Japan has claerly stated borders...so does argentina... The Japanese residents of the islands were deported...now only former soviets live there....but you seem to be okay with this...why? not enough jews to warrant mock outrage? Israel does not have clearly stated borders. They themselves admit that, and from everything I've read so far, they will solidify their borders this year. Some territories are still in dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_Israel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 The Japanese residents of the islands were deported...now only former soviets live there....but you seem to be okay with this...why? not enough jews to warrant mock outrage? So now we do recognise that position of Israel in the occupied territories is about as defendable as that of the communist Russia. And now let's recall what happened to communist Russia and the huge territories it occupied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Again, a bad comparison. However, for the sake of argument, they should all abide by international law and agreements. What do you think of that? It's a perfect comparison. In both cases, the aggressors (Germany and Japan) lost territory, to some extent as a punishment, and to some extent as reparations. Now let's look at the Arab-Israeli Wars. In every single case the Arab nations were the aggressors, and in every case they lost. They also lost control of territory, in particular that which makes up the Palestinian territories now. One of the oldest principles of international relations is that if you start a war and lose, you get very little, if any say, in the kinds of reparations. The Israelis were awfully nice and gave Egypt back Sinai, and have generally agreed in principle that the Palestinians should have their own state, but since they are the victor, they get to name the terms. If you disagree with this age-old principle, then I want you to show that by demanding the return of the Kuril Islands to Japan and Danzig to Germany. Oh, and maybe we should talk about the return of Bohemia to Austria too. The fact is that you don't give a crap about international law. You hate Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 It's a perfect comparison. In both cases, the aggressors (Germany and Japan) .. Yep if counting (i.e. noticing) history from Day 1. Arbitrarily selected (by me) to match my prejudged conclusion. When the light came on and all was nice and neat again (cleared up hastily after the initial mess). What was before doesn't count and as much as doesn't exist. All problems can be solved by proper allocation of terms and selection of right moment to start account from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 It's a perfect comparison. In both cases, the aggressors (Germany and Japan) lost territory, to some extent as a punishment, and to some extent as reparations. Now let's look at the Arab-Israeli Wars. In every single case the Arab nations were the aggressors, and in every case they lost. They also lost control of territory, in particular that which makes up the Palestinian territories now. One of the oldest principles of international relations is that if you start a war and lose, you get very little, if any say, in the kinds of reparations. The Israelis were awfully nice and gave Egypt back Sinai, and have generally agreed in principle that the Palestinians should have their own state, but since they are the victor, they get to name the terms. If you disagree with this age-old principle, then I want you to show that by demanding the return of the Kuril Islands to Japan and Danzig to Germany. Oh, and maybe we should talk about the return of Bohemia to Austria too. The fact is that you don't give a crap about international law. You hate Israel. Now let's look at the Arab-Israeli Wars. In every single case the Arab nations were the aggressors. Thats just flat out false. If you disagree with this age-old principle, then I want you to show that by demanding the return of the Kuril Islands to Japan and Danzig to Germany. Holy fuck... why on earth would you guys pursue this intellectually dishonest non-argument. You realize how easily this could be thrown back in your face on virtually any issue right? Youre trying to set up a situation where people cant comment on anything at all, without expanding the scope to include all comparable situations in history. This whole line of reasoning is really dishonest and stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Thats just flat out false. 1948 1967 1973 In each of the these wars, Israel Occupied and held on to land. Which one did Israel start? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 1948 1967 1973 In each of the these wars, Israel Occupied and held on to land. Which one did Israel start? Keep trying, you're almost there. Just one last mental effort ))) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 The fact is that you don't give a crap about international law. You hate Israel. I know she doesn't give a crap about morals. When presented with the fact that Hamas is destroying Palestinians homes, something Israel has really taken heat over, she said it was morally wrong, but she didn't know enough about it to know if it was legally wrong. And that's all she had to say about it. No condemnation for Hamas. She does hate Israel. And she's started a bajillion threads to prove it. I will say this, though. All of her threads and baseless posts, ending in nothing but insults when one dares to disagree and/or hold her accountable to her statements, have made me seriously reconsider my views on this conflict. It's made me really stop and rethink all that's happened. For one thing, it's made me realize that a lot of people out there are just blaming Israel and excusing everything Palestine does. Israel does something, and it's automatically condemned by most of the media/world. Palestinians, however, are apparently driven to engage in everything they've done. And as such, it's not "Palestine," or "Palestinians" who receive any criticism at all, but Hamas. Those who see only Palestine's side say, "but I've criticized Hamas!" I don't see criticizing Hamas now and then with a blanket declaration of "Hamas is wrong," while not criticizing Palestine or Palestinians, when Hamas is part of their government, as any kind of criticism equal to blaming/criticizing Israel. On the one hand, we've got severe criticism for Israel, on the other hand no criticism for Palestine, only an occasional "Hamas is wrong" statement, usually followed by some form of "Palestinians only voted for them because of Israel's actions." So again, Israel is to blame; Israel is even to blame when Palestinians vote for a terrorist organization. But is the hatred towards Jews through history ever seen as a reason for why Israel has acted as it has? Not at all; it's not even taken into consideration as far as I can see. As for the idea that Israel shouldn't target apartment buildings/hospitals/what have you when the leaders of such groups as Hamas 'hide out' in them, ie: hide behind civilians, that Israel should simply arrest them, I have to wonder how one would accomplish that. I can just see the U.S. soldiers marching into Iraq, going up to Saddam's home, and arresting him. Simple as that. Saddam, I'm sure, would have just answered the door; same as all these Hamas/terrorist leaders, if Israel would just make the attempt. But of course, one first has to assume that Israel hasn't made the attempt. At any rate, I first supported Israel in this conflict; then after focusing on the other side, I became more critical of Israel than I was Palestine. Now, knowing how many anti-Israel one-sided Palestine supporters there are out there, I realize that there is a lot of propaganda against Israel being thrown about. And too many of those supporting Palestine at all costs have no regard for the truth; if it will make Israel look bad, they are going to push it, truth be damned. For example, I used to believe that the bulldozer did purposely run over Rachel Corrie. Now I see how ludicrous that idea is, and it makes me realize that there are people who don't care about the truth. I also used to believe that "desperation" is what drove people to become suicide bombers. I know realize no other reason than 'hatred' is necessary; or a desire for 'glory.' There are a lot of desperate people in the world who aren't resorting to targeting and killing innocent civilians; desperate people whose purpose/goal isn't to kill civilians, including babies and children. Just because Israel is the richer, more powerful nation, doesn't mean it's in the wrong. It doesn't mean they should roll over and not fight for their right to exist. Just because Palestine is a poorer, weaker nation, doesn't mean it's right. Power isn't synonymous with wrong, and that seems to be part of the thinking regarding this conflict. Other examples of people losing their land through war/conflict/what-have-you, have been given in this thread, but of course it's never the same; it's always "different." Evidently Israel is supposed to live by standards no other nation in the world is expected to live. Israel has a right to exist and has, I believe, managed to exist only because it's refused to do otherwise. In other words, Israel has to look out for Israel, or risk losing the only Jewish state. That's not to say Israel is perfect and always does the right thing. No nation does. Lord knows our nations weren't founded, nor have they thrived, on only goodness and light. At any rate, as long as we have a poster spamming the forum with anti-Israel threads (just how many do we need, all saying the same thing?), I will speak out for Israel. So thank you, namomiglover, for helping me to strengthen my views within myself regarding this conflict. I feel more certain than I have in the past that my views are well founded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) 1948 1967 1973 In each of the these wars, Israel Occupied and held on to land. Which one did Israel start? All of those wars especially the 67 war were caused by years of skirmishes on the borders with various parties. Mostly over water resources. The 67 war was precipitated by a number of incidents involving competition for the headwaters of the River Jordan. In 1964 Israel started pumping a lot of water out of the Jordan using its National Water Carrier thereby reducing the flow to the Hashmites. The next year in 1965 Syria, Lebanon and Jordan responded with a water diversion project of their own. A plan to divert water from the Hisbani river into the Litany. This would have reduced the flow in Israels NWC signicantly just like Israels divsersion project has reduced the flow to other areas. Contrary to popular belief the war didnt start in 1967 and it didnt last 6 days. The first military punch in the conflict was actually thrown in August 1965 when the IDF bombed Mukhaiba in Syria. This started a prolonged chain of skirmishes along the border that eventually lead to Egypt closing the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shops, and expelling internation forces from the Sinai and moving troops and tanks there. After all this Israel attacked Egypt. I know thats not the version of events you want to hear but thats the accurate history of the 67 war. Nothing over there is as simple as "one side started it", and each event is preceeded by a chain of other events. Israels claim that Arabs started the war by closing the Straight and expelling UNEF from the sinai is no more valid than it would be for Jordan and Syria to claim the war was started by Israel bombing Mukhaiba. They would both be right and they would both be wrong. Edited June 10, 2010 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) I know thats not the version of events you want to hear but thats the accurate history of the 67 war. About as accurate as a hammer is sharp. I notice is your accurate version of events, you omit the blockade of Israeli ports by Egypt, the expelling of the UN observor force etc etc etc... Glad to see you editted it in...even if your spin was written by the losinbg side... Edited June 10, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Just because Israel is the richer, more powerful nation, doesn't mean it's in the wrong. It doesn't mean they should roll over and not fight for their right to exist. Just because Palestine is a poorer, weaker nation, doesn't mean it's right. Power isn't synonymous with wrong, and that seems to be part of the thinking regarding this conflict.Other examples of people losing their land through war/conflict/what-have-you, have been given in this thread, but of course it's never the same; it's always "different." Evidently Israel is supposed to live by standards no other nation in the world is expected to live. Israel has a right to exist and has, I believe, managed to exist only because it's refused to do otherwise. In other words, Israel has to look out for Israel, or risk losing the only Jewish state. That's not to say Israel is perfect and always does the right thing. No nation does. Lord knows our nations weren't founded, nor have they thrived, on only goodness and light. Israels right to exist is not in question, nor is there any credible threat against Israels existance. Other examples of people losing their land through war/conflict/what-have-you, have been given in this thread, but of course it's never the same; it's always "different." Evidently Israel is supposed to live by standards no other nation in the world is expected to live. It makes no difference whether those examples are the same or different. They are wholly and completely irrelevant. None of those situations justify anything that happens today. That whole line of reasoning is patently stupid and dishonest. "The romans took land by force so we can too!" Good fuckin grief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) About as accurate as a hammer is sharp. I notice is your accurate version of events, you omit the blockade of Israeli ports by Egypt, the expelling of the UN observor force etc etc etc... Glad to see you editted it in...even if your spin was written by the losinbg side... I didnt ommit the "expelling of UNEF". And I almost mentioned the closing of the Straight of Tiran to Israeli traffic. And that account isnt spin by either side. Its an accurate historical description of the events leading up to the war. Which is why you have nothing more than a sentence full of nothing as a reply. You like to believe that all these countries just up and attacked Israel out of the blue but thats northing more than a load of horseshit. Like I said... things over there arent as simple as your sports-fan boolean mind tries to make it. Youre trying to take a complexed set of circumstances most of which you havent even bothered to learn about, and come to a binary conclusion that one side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong. Youre the one that relies on spin to do that. I dont spin anything, and unlike you I havent prejudged based on grossly insufficient understanding. Edited June 10, 2010 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 I will say this, though. All of her threads and baseless posts, ending in nothing but insults when one dares to disagree and/or hold her accountable to her statements, have made me seriously reconsider my views on this conflict. It's made me really stop and rethink all that's happened. For one thing, it's made me realize that a lot of people out there are just blaming Israel and excusing everything Palestine does. Israel does something, and it's automatically condemned by most of the media/world. Palestinians, however, are apparently driven to engage in everything they've done. And as such, it's not "Palestine," or "Palestinians" who receive any criticism at all, but Hamas. Those who see only Palestine's side say, "but I've criticized Hamas!" ... For example, I used to believe that the bulldozer did purposely run over Rachel Corrie. Now I see how ludicrous that idea is, and it makes me realize that there are people who don't care about the truth. I also used to believe that "desperation" is what drove people to become suicide bombers. I know realize no other reason than 'hatred' is necessary; or a desire for 'glory.' There are a lot of desperate people in the world who aren't resorting to targeting and killing innocent civilians; desperate people whose purpose/goal isn't to kill civilians, including babies and children. ... At any rate, as long as we have a poster spamming the forum with anti-Israel threads (just how many do we need, all saying the same thing?), I will speak out for Israel. So thank you, namomiglover, for helping me to strengthen my views within myself regarding this conflict. I feel more certain than I have in the past that my views are well founded. Great post, and a perfect illustration of why hateful spammers like naomi/dub are ultimately self-defeating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) "The romans took land by force so we can too!" Good fuckin grief. Yes, because good fuckin grief, that's what I was saying.* *I suppose I'd better edit this post to make it clear that that's sarcasm. Edited June 10, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Great post, and a perfect illustration of why hateful spammers like naomi/dub are ultimately self-defeating. oh that dub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.