Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/3/11 11:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But since we're giving the land on the basis that "non-extremists" will live on it, form a government, and thus punish extremism...how is this logic again? Unless you tend to believe the only people who want the land are extremists.

Wouldn't the government turn extremist if the extremists get what succeed where they've failed?

It's not been demonstrably proven to be Israel's property.

It is israeli property, it was never proven to be anyone else's property.

That's based on what?

70% of jordan population are palestinans, do you really think that the entire population would revolt only to be ruled againt by a minority (Hashemite dynasty)?

Also, you are now claiming that another property is the "real" home of these people...so how exactly does it refute what I charged you with?

That's it's not just "outta here", it's living and ruling in their real homeland.

Oh? Says who? Also I don't see Iran making direct attacks against Israel at current.
Which is precisely what I'm talking about, direct, overt attacks that would then activate treaties of aid that Israel has signed with her allies.

But Ahmadinejad is threatening to destroy israel and already moved warships to syrria through suez (a port egypt control) what was not done since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

But are still not making direct attacks. They may make noise about wanting Israel wiped off the map, but rhetoric is different from direct action.

Hezbollah already shot rockets on israeli civilians and i don't see a reason they won't do it again.

And european countries whose army is not strong enough can support them to buy more time.

Like who? This is my problem. You want to throw these statements out here, but then you want to be as vague as possible.

spain was once conquered by a caliphate, which makes them a primary target by radical islamists to be conquered again.

The terrorists? Are you on the crack? They are America's allies,

And they would trust america would support them if the people revolt, right?

even though they're also a massive producer of terrorists. That's why when we were attacked on 9/11, and it's common knowledge most of the attackers were Saudis, George Bush decided that obviously Afghanistan was the problem.

Wasn't it because saudi arabia was producer of oil?

In this case, they're the guys with the most reason to spin.

More than the guys who lied and must remain reliable so they would keep up with their lie?

You haven't shown me concrete evidence as to why these third party investigations would spin.

They were wrong at the beginning and now would seem foolish to admit their mistake, they would also be accused of helping israel by "humanitarian" organizations what would make them seem even more fooliosh.

You've only ever shown me one investigation that was flawed (and they admitted the flaw).

They admitted they never check facts because "humanitarians" tell them what's true and yet you believe other reports based on "evidence" of these "humanitarians".

I've yet to see your sources admit when they get it wrong, nor say anything other then "we did right, the end".

there are soldiers who were investigated and accused, i've yet to see UN admit it's reports are based on evidence only and they ignore facts israel shown.

Which does not prove the UN is lying. There's a difference between possibly "making a mistake" vs. actively working to deceive.

The UN deceives you by never cheking testimonies' credibility and dismiss videos and photos.

But if the laws do not favor or take into account human rights, and nobody is acting to protect those rights...what matter those rights then? That's the thing. We can talk about inalienable rights all we want, but if nobody works in defense of those rights, those rights go away.

But israel is protecting these rights which the UN is trying to take.

Not in the present day. But I'm also smart enough, and knowledgeable enough to know that I cannot apply 21st century laws, ideas, and standards, into say, 3rd century laws, ideas, and standards. This is where some people fuck up at history.

The right to self determination was created by idiots?

There's especially none if you think that there is a person or entity out there that is completely infallible. That's not just being naieve, that's being willlfully stupid.

And that's repeating what i said, if someone was never proven wrong you can at any present time accuse him since no one is infallible. You would keep this "right to accuse" to the certain situation when facts lack.

Once again, see that thing about "proof" just cause you say stuff, or you're too biased or ignorant to accept the validity of sources outside your own doesn't make them "ungrounded claims". Piss off.

These are ungrounded claims believed and respected by the UN, that's what makes them different than other ungrounded claims.

Oh, I see. So if Palestinians weren't born there, grew up there, and had families there for generations, then they're human rights wouldn't be violated. Shame on them for not realizing Israel's rights are the only rights that matter.

If they hadn't sat in occupied territory their imaginary rights on it wouldn't have been violated.

So, just more of "because we want it, because we used to have it, and damn what anyone else says or thinks".

Because we were here and because we owed it doesn't matter what other people say.

---

At 3/5/11 12:22 AM, satanbrain wrote: It is israeli property, it was never proven to be anyone else's property.

fuck you all; i call dibs on Jupiter.

---

At 3/5/11 11:47 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/5/11 12:22 AM, satanbrain wrote: It is israeli property, it was never proven to be anyone else's property.

fuck you all; i call dibs on Jupiter.

Screw your shit, my great great great great grandpappy was exodised from Jupiter by Martians, it is rightfully mine and you can't prove it isn't!

>:C

However, seeing as I'm such a likeable fellow, you can have like, Io or some shit. You better not try anything funny though, or I'll bomb your ass and take Io back.

---

At 3/5/11 01:51 PM, zephiran wrote: it is rightfully mine and you can't prove it isn't!

You either can't prove israel isn't ours.

---

At 3/5/11 12:22 AM, satanbrain wrote: Wouldn't the government turn extremist if the extremists get what succeed where they've failed?

Not necessarily, no. Can you see why they might not? I just don't want to insult you by explaining something you may already be aware of.

It is israeli property, it was never proven to be anyone else's property.

That is not in any way a valid claim to say it's Israel's. Not in the law, or in anything resembling common sense. But again, we've been over this, so I'm not sure why I even bother replying to these retread points.

70% of jordan population are palestinans, do you really think that the entire population would revolt only to be ruled againt by a minority (Hashemite dynasty)?

They might, depends on how much they identify as Palestinian vs. Jordanian I'd think. It's kind of like how I figure there are people that could identify as "Israeli" but not "Jewish". I'm sure such folks exist, even if as a minority. It's all about what they consider to be their national and cultural identity that I'd imagine would determine what kind of governmental structure they would want the current one replaced with. So no, I don't think you've made your case here, but I will say this uses much better logic and grounds then a lot of other arguments I've heard from you prior. So kudos for that.

That's it's not just "outta here", it's living and ruling in their real homeland.

But how is that they're "real homeland" if we're talking about people that have only lived in the land of Israel or the neighboring areas? This is your problem I think. You think someone's "home land" is the land of their heritage or of their past, vs. the land they were born in and lived on their whole life it seems. This is just not how most people think, especially when you actually start tracing your roots in many cases. For example if I go by your theory I have roots in the land that used to be The Cherokee Nation, Germany, The Dutch who settled in Pennsylvania (which is mostly a bit more German and such), and way way back Switzerland. So if I go by your logic that the land of my birth is not necessarily my "homeland" based on my ancestry, where do I belong? Oh, and I also have just a tiny bit of connection to Judaism since my great grandfather on my mother's side was Jewish (but not practicing). So based on all that, if your argument hinges on heritage and not place of birth for "homeland" where do I fit? :)

But Ahmadinejad is threatening to destroy israel and already moved warships to syrria through suez (a port egypt control) what was not done since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

That's still not direct overt action that activates treaties for Israel. By this logic America has attacked Iran and others since we've seen similar rhetoric and actions taken against them and others. I'm talking about direct, undisputed, attack and act(s) of war. Saber rattling (which is what this looks like to me, especially with the regime in Iran embattled right now) doesn't count till it becomes something.

spain was once conquered by a caliphate, which makes them a primary target by radical islamists to be conquered again.

A Caliphate? Wait...let's check those dates...wow, 711-712 CE? Really...yeah, call me crazy, but I think Spain is a little better prepared and the world has changed some since then...

And they would trust america would support them if the people revolt, right?

I doubt they would, I wouldn't if I was them. Because America is very careful in how it deals with them since they need the oil, but they wouldn't be averse to a less extremist regime. What's your point?

Wasn't it because saudi arabia was producer of oil?

*facepalm* do you read a damn thing I write? Of COURSE that's why Bush didn't attack them, that's my whole POINT with that statement.

More than the guys who lied and must remain reliable so they would keep up with their lie?

You haven't proven they lied, nor what their motive for lying would even be. So in short, take off the tinfoil hat because it's not just blocking out the bad vibes, it also appears to cut off oxygen to your brain.

They were wrong at the beginning and now would seem foolish to admit their mistake, they would also be accused of helping israel by "humanitarian" organizations what would make them seem even more fooliosh.

Nice narrative, insane as fuck, but ok, that's your narrative. Now show me the proof that backs up the narrative please. Because I think it's just built on sand and your nationalistic belief Israel is always right.

---

They admitted they never check facts because "humanitarians" tell them what's true and yet you believe other reports based on "evidence" of these "humanitarians".

Yeah...they never actually said that.

there are soldiers who were investigated and accused, i've yet to see UN admit it's reports are based on evidence only and they ignore facts israel shown.

They didn't show they ignored anything of Israel's "facts". Also yes, reports usually are based on evidence. That tends to be a good idea when you write a report and intend to establish facts.

The UN deceives you by never cheking testimonies' credibility and dismiss videos and photos.

You don't know that for a fact even a little bit that that is what's happening.

But israel is protecting these rights which the UN is trying to take.

You've taken a general statement I made about the validity of "rights" and spun it to fit your insane bullshit narrative that has no evidence.

The right to self determination was created by idiots?

That doesn't mean what I think you think it means. This is what that means:

Self determination is the principle in international law, that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, be it independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[1] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be - or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[2]

Yeah...that doesn't look like it clearly gives Israel a right to say "this is ours because we say so, deal with it". It looks like this right isn't actually entirely clear at all.

And that's repeating what i said, if someone was never proven wrong you can at any present time accuse him since no one is infallible. You would keep this "right to accuse" to the certain situation when facts lack.

No, you would accuse when evidence and facts present that would insinuate that a crime has been committed. Why is that hard for you to get? Pretty much every nation on earth has broken or bent international law at some point in some form or another. Does that make them "evil"? No, it makes them wrong in that situation. America has violated international law and the Geneva Convention a time or three, do I think that makes us "evil"? No, it just makes us wrong and we should fess up, knock it off, and move on. Israel has been accused, and like it or not there's a big amount of evidence from sources that are credible (even if you don't think they are) that backs it up. So just accept it and move the fuck on already.

These are ungrounded claims believed and respected by the UN, that's what makes them different than other ungrounded claims.

You've proven you are in no way qualified to judge whether any independent claim is "ungrounded" since to you an ungrounded claim is "any claim Israel doesn't make, or agree with". So again I say piss off.

If they hadn't sat in occupied territory their imaginary rights on it wouldn't have been violated.

So, even if they were born there, have complied with all extant laws and obtained whatever proper and legal citizenship status they'd need to live there, that entitles them to nothing and they should have realized that birth on that soil got them nothing because they weren't born to the right faith or group? Fuck you you prejudice piece of shit.

Because we were here and because we owed it doesn't matter what other people say.

Yeah...I'm done with this particular line of argumentation...if you would however like to continue with the very first bits we argued of the last post, I'm game. That actually looked like we were in some new and potentially interesting ground. But this stuff is tired rehash that I can't be the only one in this argument getting tired of going over.

---

At 3/5/11 11:34 PM, satanbrain wrote: You either can't prove israel isn't ours.

My God...you just asked to him to "disprove a claim" which is asking to "prove a negative"...you realize that right? No...probably not...moving on.

While you all fight over Jupiter, I have successfully colonized Uranus!!!

---

Topic reached 30 pages! Damn!
Anyway few facts:

%u2022 Israel is a Jewish country.
%u2022 Israel is a democratic country.
- As it is democratic, it protects the minority from the majority.
- There are different groups of minorities. However most pro-Palestinians are against the existence of state of Israel
- The Druzes (Who believe in the Quran but are not Muslims) surve in the I.D.F, and even fight other Druzes in the enemy countries.
%u2022 Israel never started a war, except six days war which went six days which was a self defense act.
- The best self defense is offense. You won't wait for him to hit you.
%u2022 Israel had the full right to attack those ships and conquer them. Not to mention that those ships hardly supply Gaza like Israel supplies Gaza. In other words, Israel gives Gaza more supplies than all those ships together!
%u2022 Israel is being too nice to the enemy.
%u2022 Israel released like 200 terrorist from jail/prison/howeveryoucallit while 1 Israeli soldier is still waiting in jail to be released, and in worse condition than those 200 terrorists. I mean those guys got T.V, all he have are rats...
%u2022 Cakes here are nice, but not as good as an Europian cake.

---

hi, 1stalker1, can you source any of your claims? Because this sounds like the cliff notes versions of almost everything that's been discussed (and sourced) for the last 30 pages.

Also what do you mean by "too nice to the enemy" pray tell, how do you think they should be dealing with "the enemy"?

---

At 3/2/11 02:41 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: My argument is just because you held something centuries back doesn't give you a right to hold it now. If it did, the entire world would be in constant bickering and war as each nation or state fights because "they had a claim on that territory at some point and yadda" that's why we created property law, right of conquest, and all this other crap in the first place. So we could have clear concepts of "this is yours, if someone tries to take it, there are repercussions". Order instead of chaos and all that.

I agree. That's what I've been trying to argue; it looks like you've been misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't think Israel has a right to exist because G-d said that it was Jewish land. I'm saying it has a right to exist because
a: Jews have lived in that land for centuries, they deserve that land too
b: Israel is a 63 year old country. The people living there have their home. You can't just expel them.
I NEVER said that G-d gave the land to the Jews, therefore they should have that.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to read and understand the totality of what I've argued here, and consistently (not fucking hard) so you're not misrepresenting me or making yourself look foolish in the doing of it. It's tedious, annoying, and it's a waste of both our time and holds back intelligent discourse.

You need to do the same thing. I think through what I say, but you need to hold yourself to that same standard. I don't think you're a die-hard Palestinian Hamas-loving anti-Zionist, so give me some credit too. I disagree with the settlements in the West Bank too.

---

At 3/7/11 08:30 PM, Ranger2 wrote: I agree. That's what I've been trying to argue; it looks like you've been misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't think Israel has a right to exist because G-d said that it was Jewish land. I'm saying it has a right to exist because
a: Jews have lived in that land for centuries, they deserve that land too
b: Israel is a 63 year old country. The people living there have their home. You can't just expel them.
I NEVER said that G-d gave the land to the Jews, therefore they should have that.

I know, I was just clarifying MY point because you seemed to totally ignore all the bits where I said Israel had a right to exist. I think it does based on the principles you just pointed out. I think things like what satanbrain argues are shitty reasons to justify Israel, or any expansion of such. But you cannot act like just because I disagree with satanbrain means I disagree with the existence of Israel. Which seemed to me to be what you were pretty clearly doing :)

You need to do the same thing. I think through what I say, but you need to hold yourself to that same standard. I don't think you're a die-hard Palestinian Hamas-loving anti-Zionist, so give me some credit too. I disagree with the settlements in the West Bank too.

If you don't think that's what I am, then do not MAKE FUCKING UNAMBIGOUS STATEMENTS WHERE YOU PAINT ME AS SUCH!!! Because you clearly painted me as Pro-Palestine, Anti-Israel, which is a clear misrepresentation of me that we've gone round and round about at least once before this. So if you want such respect afforded to you and your points, then you better start according it to myself as well and stop resorting to tactics you're trying to claim now you don't like.

---

At 3/2/11 02:41 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: My argument is just because you held something centuries back doesn't give you a right to hold it now. If it did, the entire world would be in constant bickering and war as each nation or state fights because "they had a claim on that territory at some point and yadda" that's why we created property law, right of conquest, and all this other crap in the first place. So we could have clear concepts of "this is yours, if someone tries to take it, there are repercussions". Order instead of chaos and all that.

Keep in mind it has. This was the argument Hitler gave when he took over Sudentland and then the rest of Czech, this is the argument Mussolini made for invading the Balkans and North Africa, this is the argument Kazadric the man who lead the Republica Sprska forces during the 92-95 Bosnian war made when he took over Bosnia, this is the argument that has gotten India, Pakistan and China at war with each other this is the argument that caused the Eritea-Ethiopan wars etc. etc. It's safe to say this argument is never healthy and often leads to ethnic cleansing.

---

At 3/7/11 07:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: hi, 1stalker1, can you source any of your claims? Because this sounds like the cliff notes versions of almost everything that's been discussed (and sourced) for the last 30 pages.

Also what do you mean by "too nice to the enemy" pray tell, how do you think they should be dealing with "the enemy"?

The enemy, who are the terrorists, have the opportunity to study, watch T.V, and do something on their "free time" instead of getting punished. In addition, their families can visit them. The terrorist doesn't really have much to fear anything.

I wrote many facts, providing them to you will take me some time to search in google and I am not going to waste my time on that. In addition you might also want to visit Israel by your self, as you might say that I am lying.

Anyway, just copy paste of something I said before and I'll google that for you. But again, there is a chance you will claim it's a lie so your best chance to actually to believe to that is by visiting the countrie it self.

---

At 3/6/11 01:20 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Not necessarily, no. Can you see why they might not? I just don't want to insult you by explaining something you may already be aware of.

Because people who never compromised in anything and got what they want suddenly become moderate?

It is israeli property, it was never proven to be anyone else's property.

That is not in any way a valid claim to say it's Israel's.

If you owe something, and no one else owned it after you it is still yours.

But how is that they're "real homeland" if we're talking about people that have only lived in the land of Israel or the neighboring areas?

Did they? Did they always live in israel? Even when the israeli kingdom existed? Even when the Roman Empire ruled here?

This is your problem I think. You think someone's "home land" is the land of their heritage or of their past, vs. the land they were born in and lived on their whole life it seems.

If you were born "possessing" a stolen property it's still isn't yours.

This is just not how most people think, especially when you actually start tracing your roots in many cases.

not in case you're jewish.

For example if I go by your theory I have roots in the land that used to be The Cherokee Nation, Germany, The Dutch who settled in Pennsylvania (which is mostly a bit more German and such), and way way back Switzerland. So if I go by your logic that the land of my birth is not necessarily my "homeland" based on my ancestry, where do I belong? Oh, and I also have just a tiny bit of connection to Judaism since my great grandfather on my mother's side was Jewish (but not practicing). So based on all that, if your argument hinges on heritage and not place of birth for "homeland" where do I fit? :)

I'd say you belong to the ethnic nation you most resemble. You can't be nationless.

That's still not direct overt action that activates treaties for Israel. By this logic America has attacked Iran and others since we've seen similar rhetoric and actions taken against them and others. I'm talking about direct, undisputed, attack and act(s) of war. Saber rattling (which is what this looks like to me, especially with the regime in Iran embattled right now) doesn't count till it becomes something.

If iran is financing a direct attack on israel it counts?

A Caliphate? Wait...let's check those dates...wow, 711-712 CE? Really...yeah, call me crazy, but I think Spain is a little better prepared and the world has changed some since then...

That's why they are supporting terrorists with boycotting israel?

I doubt they would, I wouldn't if I was them. Because America is very careful in how it deals with them since they need the oil, but they wouldn't be averse to a less extremist regime. What's your point?

They would fear america would leave them and won't support them, although the US now support reforms and not protesters the dictators can't be sure it'll be it's policy.

More than the guys who lied and must remain reliable so they would keep up with their lie?

You haven't proven they lied, nor what their motive for lying would even be.

Keep their reputation and their trust with what they call "humanitarians".

Nice narrative, insane as fuck, but ok, that's your narrative. Now show me the proof that backs up the narrative please. Because I think it's just built on sand and your nationalistic belief Israel is always right.

They call terrorists who killed civilians "political prisoners" and wish us to release them. They are even claiming that releasing these terrorists would boost peace.

They still claim "children" can't be terrorists, that israeli soldiers used children as human shields and that hospitals, mosques, kindergardens and schools were never used as terrorists' bases. They also claim that no tons of aid are passed and that they are still not enough materials to construct and repair. They claim that self-defense of settlers is wrong and even blaming the israeli government for it.

Yeah...they never actually said that.

Do you deny they are using "international" reports created by anti-israelis as utterly valid?

They didn't show they ignored anything of Israel's "facts".

They disregard it as non-exist and then show israel's repond that their biased reports are biased.

You don't know that for a fact even a little bit that that is what's happening.

How can claim that terrorsits are peace-activists when it is shown they've attacked soldiers unless they ignore videos?

Yeah...that doesn't look like it clearly gives Israel a right to say "this is ours because we say so, deal with it". It looks like this right isn't actually entirely clear at all.

It gives the jewish people the right to establish a state in their own land.

No, you would accuse when evidence and facts present that would insinuate that a crime has been committed.

Presented by the side who fail to destroy the other in other means and whose lies are easily shown.

Why is that hard for you to get? Pretty much every nation on earth has broken or bent international law at some point in some form or another.

And because of that you can accuse any nation in the certain crime you want?

Israel has been accused, and like it or not there's a big amount of evidence from sources that are credible (even if you don't think they are) that backs it up. So just accept it and move the fuck on already.

Give up truth because we were charged wuth false accusations for so long? Surrender and confess thing we haven't done because you can't admit you were wrongly accusing?

So, even if they were born there, have complied with all extant laws and obtained whatever proper and legal citizenship status they'd need to live there, that entitles them to nothing and they should have realized that birth on that soil got them nothing because they weren't born to the right faith or group? Fuck you you prejudice piece of shit.

Even if they stole it with permission from conqueres they are still not from the nation who owes the land and thus do not owe it.

---

At 3/8/11 01:09 AM, 1Stalker1 wrote

But again, there is a chance you will claim it's a lie so your best chance to actually to believe to that is by visiting the countrie it self.

But it's easier to believe in a lie then actually check and see the facts for yourself.

---

At 3/8/11 02:06 PM, satanbrain wrote: At 3/8/11 01:09 AM, 1Stalker1 wrote

But again, there is a chance you will claim it's a lie so your best chance to actually to believe to that is by visiting the countrie it self.

But it's easier to believe in a lie then actually check and see the facts for yourself.

Long time no see eh? Good to see you again.

---

At 3/8/11 01:09 AM, 1Stalker1 wrote: The enemy, who are the terrorists, have the opportunity to study, watch T.V, and do something on their "free time" instead of getting punished. In addition, their families can visit them. The terrorist doesn't really have much to fear anything.

What then would be a proper "punishment"?

I wrote many facts, providing them to you will take me some time to search in google and I am not going to waste my time on that. In addition you might also want to visit Israel by your self, as you might say that I am lying.

I wouldn't ever call you a liar unless I could prove you were knowingly deceptive. Also I could google the stuff you're saying, but it's more helpful to know what sources specifically you're getting your facts from so that we can address and assess the credibility of the source. Because sometimes people think a source is giving them "facts" and only facts, when really they're getting some facts, but with a lot of opinion and spin. It's not up to me to research your points I don't think, it's up to you to back them up in a debate.

Anyway, just copy paste of something I said before and I'll google that for you. But again, there is a chance you will claim it's a lie so your best chance to actually to believe to that is by visiting the countrie it self.

No, it really isn't. Because your assumption is that the country in question always tells the whole truth, even if that truth is to their detriment. As far as what you said, I'd like a source for just about everything you've said, but I'll take a couple seconds to just glean some important ones that made me go "hmmm":

Israel is a Jewish Country
- As it is democratic, it protects the minority from the majority.
- There are different groups of minorities. However most pro-Palestinians are against the existence of state of Israel

I'd like a source that shows where it has been actually codefied that Israel is a Jewish State (I know there was an attempt at such). I'd also like you to prove that "most" pro-Palestinians are against the existence of Israel, because I don't believe you can and you either read this from an opinion site or you're being deceptive.

%u2022 Israel had the full right to attack those ships and conquer them. Not to mention that those ships hardly supply Gaza like Israel supplies Gaza. In other words, Israel gives Gaza more supplies than all those ships together!

Prove this, because I have never seen a valid source that will back this claim that Israel is supplying more then anyone else.

%u2022 Israel is being too nice to the enemy.

You still haven't defined for me what would be more proper in your opinion measures. Also this is not a fact, this is an opinion.

%u2022 Israel released like 200 terrorist from jail/prison/howeveryoucallit while 1 Israeli soldier is still waiting in jail to be released, and in worse condition than those 200 terrorists. I mean those guys got T.V, all he have are rats...

Source again please.

Thank you very much.

---

At 3/8/11 01:20 PM, satanbrain wrote: Because people who never compromised in anything and got what they want suddenly become moderate?

You just painted Palestinians as extremist again. This also has nothing to do with what I was thinking of. Depending on how the state were to be established, and how that victory is reported to the public, it's quite possible that the people could get the idea that it was IN SPITE of extremism and thus the people might lose their taste for that sort of rhetoric.

But again, I think you've betrayed I think your real views on Palestinians.

If you owe something, and no one else owned it after you it is still yours.

Except people did. You just don't want to admit it.

Did they? Did they always live in israel? Even when the israeli kingdom existed? Even when the Roman Empire ruled here?

I'm talking about NATURAL BORN CITIZENS who are native to this territory, and you believe they're rights are fictitious and they should leave because they're "squatting" on land that should go to your people.

If you were born "possessing" a stolen property it's still isn't yours.

That's completely ignoring the parameters of what I said, which is based on legal reality, to suit your own ends. Clearly you don't understand what a "natural born citizen" is. Let's add that to the big scrap book of "shit satanbrain is ignorant/prejudice about".

not in case you're jewish.

I pointed out I'm a little jewish, I don't think that way. Ranger2 is 100% Jewish and he doesn't think this way. Also I'd like to see you cite something official where Jews or the Jewish religion say this is how they think. Because I think you're a lone supremacist trying to say that the group is supremacist vs. just you. It's pretty disgusting actually.

I'd say you belong to the ethnic nation you most resemble. You can't be nationless.

I'm not. I'm American, I'm part of the nation of the US. Nations aren't just ethnic son. Here, let me prove it:

Nation

You'll note that your definition is actually definition number 4, and my own identification is the very first. You're using far too narrow an application of the term. Let's try homeland next:

1. one's native land.

Shit...I was right again. Oh this isn't going too well for you is it?

If iran is financing a direct attack on israel it counts?

In international law? It might be trickier to prosecute, if we're talking about just meeting my own personal criteria? Sure. But please, if you're going to allege that, I need a credible source. I'm no fan of Iran, but I'm a fan of slander of anybody even less so.

That's why they are supporting terrorists with boycotting israel?

Boycotting Israel does not automatically mean siding with terrorists. Your article (that I did read) doesn't even allege that. You can be against Israel and against terrorism at the same time. This is a false conclusion...I'm sure there's a term for this sort of logical fallacy but it escapes me at the moment...

They would fear america would leave them and won't support them, although the US now support reforms and not protesters the dictators can't be sure it'll be it's policy.

The US treads carefully in these situations because while they would like a friendlier government, they can't just throw their support behind a protest movement because if that fails, they're now stuck with a very hostile and pissed off dictator who kept his seat and is now going to make America pay for backing the wrong horse. They don't have huge amounts to fear in America leaving them in Saudi Arabia, they are the leading oil producer, The US is the leading consumer. The US runs a policy in public of "if you harbor or support terrorists, it's your ass" or at least we did under Bush. Saudi Arabia did, and still does, we don't jump them. As long as the government is stable and doesn't force our hand, it seems patently clear The US will leave them alone. It isn't as easy to figure out how these things will play as you seem to think.

Keep their reputation and their trust with what they call "humanitarians".

I asked for proof, not more allegations.

They call terrorists who killed civilians "political prisoners" and wish us to release them. They are even claiming that releasing these terrorists would boost peace.

Some of these people listed are "elected Palestinian officials" not listed as terrorists. Please prove to me all these prisoners are terrorist. Or is this a "they're Palestinian...obviously they're terrorists!" argument?

They still claim "children" can't be terrorists,

"The Israel/occupied Palestinian territory working group on grave violations against children confirmed 12 cases of Palestinian children who were killed while bearing arms and acting as combatants during "Operation Cast Lead". The working group also confirmed one case of recruitment of a 16-year-old boy by the armed group Ezz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The actual number of cases is believed to be higher and there had been other reported incidents of children being trained and/or used by Palestinian militant groups in Gaza. Community members are, however, reluctant to provide information on this practice. " That's from YOUR link. So either you can't read, you're a liar, or both. Please tell me which one it is. Because clearly they think children can be used as terrorists and combatants.

that israeli soldiers used children as human shields and that hospitals, mosques, kindergardens and schools were never used as terrorists' bases.

They definitely accused the officers, and both sides are investigating. You told the truth about that much at least. Though I'm sure you've already decided they must be innocent because no TRUE Israeli would do that shit amiright? As far as the schools, and other areas, they are saying they have not been rebuilt, they killed children, forcibly entered...so it looks like they aren't saying they "were never used" just that the ones they're entering were not used as such according to their evidence. Please to provide a non-biased source that says they were?

They also claim that no tons of aid are passed and that they are still not enough materials to construct and repair.

That they do, can you refute it?

They claim that self-defense of settlers is wrong and even blaming the israeli government for it.

No, they didn't claim that at all. They claim it's wrong for the military to torture kids, shoot them, beat them, threaten them, and deny them medical care because they don't have the right permits though. That stuff is in there. How about you learn how to properly read your own fucking links? You totally misrepresented the issue with this last one.

Do you deny they are using "international" reports created by anti-israelis as utterly valid?

I'm denying you've proven an anti-israeli bias. So I guess yeah, I am denying it until I see the EVIDENCE.

They disregard it as non-exist and then show israel's repond that their biased reports are biased.

Maybe because Israel can't actually show a true "bias"? You sure seem to fail at it both hard and regularly.

It gives the jewish people the right to establish a state in their own land.

It is in no way that clear cut and if you read it right, you'd know that.

---

A proper punishment? It depends on the situation. The most harsh one in my view is leaving him in a closed room alone. U.S.A uses this punishment.
The most easy one is treating them like they do right now.

My sources are from the media, objects I saw and school (history class much). Depends on what it is. Living in Israel also provides me a special source: To see by my self of what's going on. But you won't believe to my word, as you trust your sources.

"I'd like a source that shows where it has been actually codefied that Israel is a Jewish State"
I bet you already know the answer. But I guess you still want to hear the answer from me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Dec laration_of_Independence

"Prove this, because I have never seen a valid source that will back this claim that Israel is supplying more then anyone else."
Israel counts how much it sends into Gaza. When they conquered the ships the resources inside were less then what Israel sends. For this one I have only the media source, and you also have media source. But to know for sure we need to visit Gaza right? Not many will do that right now as you might get hit by a rocket that might come from Gaza.

"You still haven't defined for me what would be more proper in your opinion measures. Also this is not a fact, this is an opinion."
Yeah you are right, this is indeed opinion. But Israel is too nice to the people they capture than the Terrorist Arabs, that's a fact. I already said why. Not to mention that they operate on the soldiers that they capture like what happened to one of the Israeli pilots.

"Source again please."
Meet google.
www.google.com

Writing this takes me less then finding a proper source for you, as you said before: you can use google.

Anyways thanks for the reply, tho I don't expect you to change your opinion it's just like a hobby.

"I'm talking about NATURAL BORN CITIZENS who are native to this territory, and you believe they're rights are fictitious and they should leave because they're "squatting" on land that should go to your people."
This is a big argument you are having there. I wouldn't support to kick out civilians who were born in Israel after the creation of the Israeli s tate. Moreover too much time passed already. In addition they help to develop Israel a little bit, like having doctors. Anyway that's my opinion.

---

At 3/9/11 08:06 AM, 1Stalker1 wrote: A proper punishment? It depends on the situation. The most harsh one in my view is leaving him in a closed room alone. U.S.A uses this punishment.

You mean prison?

My sources are from the media, objects I saw and school (history class much).

Because it's completely impossible that a school curriculum could leave out inconvenient truths (Japanese Internment Camps in the US much?) or the media to leave out facts that advertisers, government officials or campaigns their parent companies support, etc is also unheard of? That's why actual names for sources are good so we can evaluate their track record with the truth and fair reporting.

Depends on what it is. Living in Israel also provides me a special source: To see by my self of what's going on. But you won't believe to my word, as you trust your sources.

I do, because no offense guy, but who are you? What are your credentials? Are you a journalist? Are you affiliated with the Israeli government? Are you a pathological liar? I don't know any of these things. I don't even know your real name!! That's why if you want to tell me something is a "fact" that might be in dispute, you need to show me a source. Just as if I wanted to do the same, you would absolutely have the right to ask for same.

None of that is meant to slam you in any way, so please don't take it as such. I'm just pointing out the fundamental problem of taking someone "at their word" on a message board.

I bet you already know the answer. But I guess you still want to hear the answer from me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Dec laration_of_Independence

Ah, I see, I see. I think the hang up for me was there had been that debate recently about whether or not Israel has the right to ask citizens to take a loyalty pledge asserting such a thing.

Israel counts how much it sends into Gaza. When they conquered the ships the resources inside were less then what Israel sends. For this one I have only the media source, and you also have media source. But to know for sure we need to visit Gaza right? Not many will do that right now as you might get hit by a rocket that might come from Gaza.

Or I could look at independent documentation by humanitarian and UN organizations who have no interest in anything other then the truth. The problem with a "media source" is it depends on what source we're using and what their agenda is. I've had this conversation many times with others. The problem with Israeli sources on Israeli issues is the same as Palestinian, or any other similar source that may have a clear "agenda" the reporting will most likely be biased and have a slant.

Yeah you are right, this is indeed opinion. But Israel is too nice to the people they capture than the Terrorist Arabs, that's a fact.

Not according to reports that Israeli Supremacist satanbrain has linked to where the UN has said otherwise. In fact they're pretty nasty to Palestinians in general from the look of those...not sure how many were actual terrorists.

Meet google.
www.google.com

Google is a search engine. I want the NAME of the ACTUAL MEDIA SOURCES THAT YOU USE TO GET THIS INFO. Then I can check that against other sources so we can test it's factual validity. If you don't understand how this works, or why it's important, this isn't the forum for you.

Writing this takes me less then finding a proper source for you, as you said before: you can use google.

I can, but that in no way guarantees that I can find the source you're using thus being able to "fact check" them and their credibility. Which is what I'm asking here, I'm asking you to prove the credibility of your statements and the sources you're getting them from. As I'd expect you to do with me if I made a statement that didn't jibe with your own experiences or what you've read.

This is a big argument you are having there. I wouldn't support to kick out civilians who were born in Israel after the creation of the Israeli s tate. Moreover too much time passed already. In addition they help to develop Israel a little bit, like having doctors. Anyway that's my opinion.

Crap, did I type that in a reply to you? I'm sorry man. I was addressing that at satanbrain, I never saw you saying that and I do humbly apologize. Because you're right, that's a hell of a thing to say to somebody if they said nothing to make it seem so. Total mistype on my part and a big apology for it.

---

At 3/8/11 10:57 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You just painted Palestinians as extremist again. This also has nothing to do with what I was thinking of. Depending on how the state were to be established, and how that victory is reported to the public, it's quite possible that the people could get the idea that it was IN SPITE of extremism and thus the people might lose their taste for that sort of rhetoric.

The palestinans are already planning a third intifada, i doubt this will stay theoretically only.

If you owe something, and no one else owned it after you it is still yours.

Except people did. You just don't want to admit it.

Except people conquer and didn't owe.

I'm talking about NATURAL BORN CITIZENS who are native to this territory, and you believe they're rights are fictitious and they should leave because they're "squatting" on land that should go to your people.

They are squatting on the land that belong to my people, if they wish to remain stateless and "occupied" they can stay there.

That's completely ignoring the parameters of what I said, which is based on legal reality, to suit your own ends. Clearly you don't understand what a "natural born citizen" is. Let's add that to the big scrap book of "shit satanbrain is ignorant/prejudice about".

A natural born citizen is anyone who stole a land and recognized as it's owners? Just because someone is born in some place he owes it?

I pointed out I'm a little jewish, I don't think that way. Ranger2 is 100% Jewish and he doesn't think this way.

And people once didn't though that the heart functions like brain and the brain is unimportant.

Also I'd like to see you cite something official where Jews or the Jewish religion say this is how they think. Because I think you're a lone supremacist trying to say that the group is supremacist vs. just you. It's pretty disgusting actually.

Zionists do.

I'm not. I'm American, I'm part of the nation of the US. Nations aren't just ethnic son. Here, let me prove it:

So you don't care don't want to be, that's okay.

Nation

You'll note that your definition is actually definition number 4, and my own identification is the very first. You're using far too narrow an application of the term.

Is every nation multiethnic?

In international law? It might be trickier to prosecute, if we're talking about just meeting my own personal criteria? Sure. But please, if you're going to allege that, I need a credible source. I'm no fan of Iran, but I'm a fan of slander of anybody even less so.

"Explaining his country's vote, the representative of the United States stated that there had been new developments, referring to the major escalation by Hezbollah in south Lebanon and subsequent announcement by the Secretary-General that he would send a team to the region. He then contended that the draft was unbalanced as it did not acknowledge that Israeli military actions were in response to rocket attacks and to the abduction of the Israeli soldier. Finally, he asserted that Hamas and Hezbollah were supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran and by the
Syrian Arab Republic" Credible enough?

That's why they are supporting terrorists with boycotting israel?

Boycotting Israel does not automatically mean siding with terrorists. Your article (that I did read) doesn't even allege that. You can be against Israel and against terrorism at the same time.

But that's combined with other reasons indicate support.

I'm sure there's a term for this sort of logical fallacy but it escapes me at the moment...

Denial.

Some of these people listed are "elected Palestinian officials" not listed as terrorists. Please prove to me all these prisoners are terrorist. Or is this a "they're Palestinian...obviously they're terrorists!" argument?

They've planned terrorist acts, they are responsible for the death of civilians
.

"The Israel/occupied Palestinian territory working group on grave violations against children confirmed 12 cases of Palestinian children who were killed while bearing arms and acting as combatants during "Operation Cast Lead". The working group also confirmed one case of recruitment of a 16-year-old boy by the armed group Ezz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The actual number of cases is believed to be higher and there had been other reported incidents of children being trained and/or used by Palestinian militant groups in Gaza. Community members are, however, reluctant to provide information on this practice. " That's from YOUR link. So either you can't read, you're a liar, or both. Please tell me which one it is. Because clearly they think children can be used as terrorists and combatants.

"Community members are, however, reluctant to provide information on this practice." They are receiving their information from, according to what they believe, terrorists. And they believe that the other children can't be terrorists since the working group failed to confirm it.

Though I'm sure you've already decided they must be innocent because no TRUE Israeli would do that shit amiright?

It was never proved.

As far as the schools, and other areas, they are saying they have not been rebuilt, they killed children, forcibly entered...so it looks like they aren't saying they "were never used" just that the ones they're entering were not used as such according to their evidence.

Which proves it was taken from terrorists and not confirmed.

Please to provide a non-biased source that says they were?

I've provied photos, provide a photo showing that a school empty of terrorists is bombed.

That they do, can you refute it?

Record of it's passing, the money taken to these tasks, the resupply of materials. Can't you see they are lying again?

No, they didn't claim that at all. They claim it's wrong for the military to torture kids,

Which never happened.

shoot them,

Shooting human shields or terorrists themselves.

beat them,

Lie again.

threaten them,

Smae lie.

and deny them medical care because they don't have the right permits though.

Never happened, the soldiers themselves took care of them and moved them to hospitals.

Maybe because Israel can't actually show a true "bias"?

Or because they are biased and denying it.

It is in no way that clear cut and if you read it right, you'd know that.

since your international laws say as much?

---

"You mean prison?"
Isolation. Prison is to lock them in a room, but it's not isolating. Isolating is more harsh...

I cannot tell you the names of the news I watched, because there are many of them. I can mention few like ABC, Y-Net, Yahoo, but there are many more.

"I do, because no offense guy, but who are you? What are your credentials? Are you a journalist? Are you affiliated with the Israeli government? Are you a pathological liar? I don't know any of these things. I don't even know ... "

That's why I said you need to visit Israel. You will see how the Arabs are being treated and etc..
Also the military is not army of robots. People do the job there and know more than I do about what's going on the field. But about what is going inside Israel and not the borders everyone can see.

"The problem with a "media source" is it depends on what source we're using"
It is similar as listening to your friend. You decide if you trust him or not. Saying he lies because you disagree with him doesn't means he is indeed a lier - there is a reason why he says it.

I don't count on one media source. I like to read different opinions and point of views. It's kinda amusign as-well.

Here is a random link I found by using Google, the amazing search engine.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/dichter-isra el-to-allow-aid-supplies-food-into-gaza-
1.223188

I recognized it as it is an Israeli newspaper, now other source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/
middleeast/10mideast.html

And.. this
http://www.cicweb.ca/scene/2010/06/israe l_aid_to_gaza/

Google is amazing. And it took me only 5 minuets.

The news are many. Newspapers are not controlled by a government to brain wash it only happens in non-democratic countries. And there they don't have much access to the Internet, too many banned websites. But we talk about facts don't we? There are people who can see a fact and still call it a lie. The best way to prove my point is, again, to come and see it by your self...

---

So due to all the upheaval in the ME, Israel is thinking about asking the US for another $20 BILLION in "security" aid.
Which is odd because they just helped make their piece of the pie a little more secure by shutting down one of the busiest border crossings, and THE busiest commercial border crossing in Karni. This will drop aid supplies into Gaza by 20%.

Ya know, they wouldn't need such a huge security budget if they stopped all the stupid shit like bombing Palestinian education facilities.
That and charging Arabs with rape because they said they were Jewish to get laid is a joke too.

But when you enjoy complete protection from any international organization or laws, I guess you can do what you want.

---

At 3/10/11 09:48 AM, bcdemon wrote: That and charging Arabs with rape because they said they were Jewish to get laid is a joke too.

rape by fraud laws isn't a uniquely Israeli thing.

---

At 3/10/11 08:27 AM, satanbrain wrote: The palestinans are already planning a third intifada, i doubt this will stay theoretically only.

Once again, how about you stop trying to act like you don't think "Palestinian=Extremist/Terrorist" because obviously you do. Source also please?

Except people conquer and didn't owe.

Except they did because that's what the word "conquest" means. Either you're ignorant of the meaning of the word, or you just think you can change definitions to your convenience. Either way, you're wrong wrong wrong.

They are squatting on the land that belong to my people, if they wish to remain stateless and "occupied" they can stay there.

So once and for all we've proven you're prejudice because only the Jews have any rights in that land according to you. Even though we have clear evidence of Palestinians living there side by side with Jews for centuries, and even controlling the territory for a bulk of it. But now that you're superior people (who aren't even that genitically different are there) they're rights don't matter, even if they know no other home land. I also like how you've conveniently dropped the word "nation" and changed it to "state". But yeah, thanks for clearing this up once and for all. You're a supremacist, you disgust me, I think I'll stop playing with you for now then.

Just because someone is born in some place he owes it?

If someone is born into a sovereign state, he is granted citizenship and the rights and privileges that come with it. This is an internationally accepted concept. If a Palestinian were say, to be born in the US, he would be considered a citizen because of his birth. Maybe you don't like the concept, but what you like is irrelevant here because as I said, that is the legal reality you're supremacist viewpoint doesn't want to accept.

And people once didn't though that the heart functions like brain and the brain is unimportant.

That is a non-sequitor to the point. You said Jews all think the way you do. I showed you someone slightly Jewish who doesn't, and there's two people in this thread identifying as Jewish (one is even Israeli!) who don't think the way you do. You fail again.

Zionists do.

Not every Jew is a Zionist though I bet, and as we already pointed out, Zionism has different facets. So again, I say fail.

Is every nation multiethnic?

Depends on how we're defining "nation" as my whole point was that the term "nation" has more then just the single definition you want it to have. But just about every STATE on this earth is multi-ethnic. The one's that aren't? Well those tend to be run by supremacists and racists who don't want anyone who isn't their own kind co-habitating in there...sound familiar?

"Explaining his country's vote, the representative of the United States stated that there had been new developments, referring to the major escalation by Hezbollah in south Lebanon and subsequent announcement by the Secretary-General that he would send a team to the region. He then contended that the draft was unbalanced as it did not acknowledge that Israeli military actions were in response to rocket attacks and to the abduction of the Israeli soldier. Finally, he asserted that Hamas and Hezbollah were supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran and by the
Syrian Arab Republic" Credible enough?

Indeed, why not lead with this before? Oh right...cause it was by the UN...but wait, doesn't the UN always lie and never give Israel any help or credit? Looks like they did here...uh oh...

But that's combined with other reasons indicate support.

You're article did not show them, nor have you shown evidence again. In fact last I checked Spain has been a target of terrorism and is a stated member of the "War on Terror" coalitions of the world. So um...fail again? Fail again.

Denial.

Cute, but no. It's something like "false comparison" or "false dilemma". Something with "false" in it. Like most of your arguments and assertions.

They've planned terrorist acts, they are responsible for the death of civilians

That's not proving it. Prove it with sources that link their name to terrorist actions. I don't think you can, and being as hateful as you are to any Palestinian, I'm sure you think they're terrorists simply because of who they are.

"Community members are, however, reluctant to provide information on this practice." They are receiving their information from, according to what they believe, terrorists. And they believe that the other children can't be terrorists since the working group failed to confirm it.

I didn't see that noted in the article at all.

It was never proved.

So that'd basically be a yes?

Which proves it was taken from terrorists and not confirmed.

No, it really doesn't. Unless you have this bias and unending belief that Israel would never engage in such actions. That they never could. Which is right on the border of a "no true scotsman" fallacy. You just need to take another step or two and you're falling right off that logical cliff.

I've provied photos, provide a photo showing that a school empty of terrorists is bombed.

The photos didn't seem to prove that to me and they are disputed and usually accompanied by only the Israeli explanation. Plus you've proven you have a supremacist viewpoint, a lack of reading comprehension, and that you don't understand what constitutes proof. So again, I think this'll be my last post to you because I can't debate somebody who I trust not even a little to come up with anything even close to valid.

Record of it's passing, the money taken to these tasks, the resupply of materials. Can't you see they are lying again?

No, because again, all you have is Israel saying they're allocating the money to this. You can't prove a motive by the UN to lie. You can't prove the UN isn't sending investigators to LOOK at the actual schools and other buildings to see with their own eyes if they're rebuilt or not. You just ASSUME they're taking someone's word for it, and that someone is a terrorist. It's laughable.

Which never happened.

You were there?

Shooting human shields or terorrists themselves.

Not what you're report claims.

Lie again.

Again, you were there?

Smae lie.

hahahaha, you're like a broken record of fail.

Never happened, the soldiers themselves took care of them and moved them to hospitals.

Then why is that absent from the report? Oh right, the "conspiracy" you can't prove.

Or because they are biased and denying it.

Yeah, I think that's exactly Israel's problem. A lot of states have that problem when they get charged though, so I can't just wag a finger at Israel over that.

since your international laws say as much?

Yeah, actually it does. Let's qoute and bold the relevant bits where it says so:

"The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, be it independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[1] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be - or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination". So when they're saying quite clearly "we're not sure about criteria" how can it clearly give the Jews the rights you claim it does? Oh right, because Jews are the best thing ever.

I'm done, the prejudice is making my head hurt and my stomach heave.

---

Satanbrain, I'd be careful with trying to lump Jews together. I am a Jew and a Zionist but I don't agree with everything Israel does and neither do the people I pray with. I actually know some Jews who don't support Israel.

I think that Judaism has become a bit too affiliated with Israel. I don't think that Israel is a bad country, but there's been too much effort on our part to say "you're Jewish, support Israel." Israel is not the representative of the Jewish people, like the Holy See is to Catholics.

The reason I support Israel is because it is fighting the same enemy we are and is the only democracy in the Middle East. I'll admit some slight bias on my part; it is nice to have a Jewish state but that's not why I'm a Zionist. It's more political than anything else.

Satanbrain, I'm also curious about what your criteria are to be Jewish. Is it purely religious or is it racial/ethnic too? I personally think it is religious only: You either are Jewish or you aren't. There's no such thing as being "half-Jewish" But then again there are some Jews who disagree with me.

You know the saying, "two rabbis, three opinions."

---

At 3/10/11 11:58 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/10/11 09:48 AM, bcdemon wrote: That and charging Arabs with rape because they said they were Jewish to get laid is a joke too.

rape by fraud laws isn't a uniquely Israeli thing.

You're right, there are a few places that have "rape by fraud" laws, but very few prosecute for it.
Imagine if the cops actually enforced this law:

So you don't make $120,000 a year? BUSTED
What do you mean you wear a taupe? BUSTED
I thought you said you were 25? Not 33?? BUSTED
You're really a brunette? BUSTED
YOU STUFF YOUR BRA?? Busted
You told me at the bar you were born in Toronto, not Tulsa?? BUSTED

Man were all guilty....

---

At 3/10/11 07:10 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 3/10/11 11:58 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/10/11 09:48 AM, bcdemon wrote: That and charging Arabs with rape because they said they were Jewish to get laid is a joke too.

rape by fraud laws isn't a uniquely Israeli thing.

You're right, there are a few places that have "rape by fraud" laws, but very few prosecute for it.

and from what can be seen, Israel doesn't seem to be leading the field in this laws use either. yay! they're good guys now!

---

At 3/10/11 06:43 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Satanbrain, I'd be careful with trying to lump Jews together. I am a Jew and a Zionist but I don't agree with everything Israel does and neither do the people I pray with. I actually know some Jews who don't support Israel.

I know this isn't addressed at me, but I'd just like to chime in that I really liked seeing this. Because so often it seems like the only opinions you hear on the matter is tends towards "Israel is always wrong and sucks" or "Israel is always right, and if you're a Jew, you should be for Israel and all that it does 100%".

I think that Judaism has become a bit too affiliated with Israel. I don't think that Israel is a bad country, but there's been too much effort on our part to say "you're Jewish, support Israel." Israel is not the representative of the Jewish people, like the Holy See is to Catholics.

Agreed, to be honest I've never quite understood why it's so important for Jews to have "have a home land" in the sense that Israel was established. That's not to say I don't support Israel's existence, or people living there or whatever. Just that I never understood the driving need after centuries away from that particular territory for people to then turn around and say "we want to be back here, we NEED to be back here" without starting to see some sort of dark cloud of a group of people trying to isolate themselves, or they're looking for some kind of "purity" in they want to stay within their own group. Now I realize it would be unfair to characterize everyone in Israel that way (though obviously there's a lot of evidence that it's a fairly powerful school of thought) but that sort of crap just seems icky to me. Because while I'd hate to do anything as absurd as a "reduction to Hitler" or similar comparisons, it's certainly undeniable that sort of thought process factored into their policies.

The reason I support Israel is because it is fighting the same enemy we are and is the only democracy in the Middle East. I'll admit some slight bias on my part; it is nice to have a Jewish state but that's not why I'm a Zionist. It's more political than anything else.

Huh? Not trying to take a bite out of your ass...but if you really don't care about having a Jewish state, what's so Zionist about you then? Because I thought that was pretty much the basic point about being Zionist. I mean, I can support (or I guess at least see the advantage and benefit) in the existence of a state like Israel for those same reasons you mentioned...but that's just enlightened self-interest I'd think, nothing Zionist about that. Maybe I just need you to clarify a little more? :)

Satanbrain, I'm also curious about what your criteria are to be Jewish. Is it purely religious or is it racial/ethnic too? I personally think it is religious only: You either are Jewish or you aren't. There's no such thing as being "half-Jewish" But then again there are some Jews who disagree with me.

I think he's made it clear it's more racial/ethnic (nevermind that there's no 100% exclusive markers racially or ethnically for being a Jew), after all, he claims to be an atheist but still says he's 100% Jewish.

---

At 3/11/11 08:30 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Huh? Not trying to take a bite out of your ass...but if you really don't care about having a Jewish state, what's so Zionist about you then? Because I thought that was pretty much the basic point about being Zionist. I mean, I can support (or I guess at least see the advantage and benefit) in the existence of a state like Israel for those same reasons you mentioned...but that's just enlightened self-interest I'd think, nothing Zionist about that. Maybe I just need you to clarify a little more? :)

Well, there are different types of Zionism.
There's labor Zionism, meaning that Jews should become self-sufficient in their own land instead of living in shtetls in anti-semitic Europe.
There's Nationalist and religious Zionism, meaning that Jews should have their own homeland and that the land should be Jewish.
There's even Green Zionism, saying that Jews should come to the desert and make it bloom (which has happened, Israel today is much more green and lush than it was 60 years ago)

But if I were to be lumped in with a form of Zionism, it would have to be Liberal Zionism, which is a Zionist movement based on a Jewish homeland in Israel that stresses religious tolerance while being accomodating to Judaism, and most importantly, democracy. Thanks to the liberal Zionists Israel is not a monarchy or dictatorship. Israel has respected the rights of Muslims in Israel to practice their religion, as well as allow a safe haven for Jews in the otherwise anti-Semitic Middle East.

That's why I'm a Zionist. I'm not in any Zionist groups but if supporting Israel for any of the reasons above make you a Zionist, then I am one. I believe that Israel is the freest country in the Middle East. They are a democracy, stable, the people have rights, and religious freedom. (I've seen IDF soldiers clear out all non-Muslims out of the Dome of the Rock when it was time to pray so don't say that Israel doesn't respect Muslim-Israeli rights). The fact that it's a Jewish state is the icing on the cake. I am a Jew, and I know my religion's history, so we oughta have a state. That being said, I am an American and have no intention of being Israeli but that doesn't mean I can't support it and feel empathy towards it.

I like where this is going, explanations instead of fighting.