Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

If my neighbor was shooting everyone in the neighborhood on a shooting spree for no apparent reason, and I picked up his own child to use as a human shield, there would be no fault in it.

Dude, that is fucking idiotic.

[DanaC]

Radar, you are a Zionist. Why do we expect any kind of rational response from you?

How can you see a list of dead children and lay the blame at the door of their grieving parents, refusing to lay any of the responsibility at the doors of those who killed them? Answer: because the life of twelve year old Palestinian is worth less to you than the life of a twelve year old Israeli. The life of an eighteen month old Palestinian toddler, is worth less to you than the life of an Israeli soldier. The life of a Palestinian is worth less to you than the life of a dog.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Radar, you are a Zionist. Why do we expect any kind of rational response from you?

Because I'm a Zionist and Zionists give intelligent, thoughtful, well-reasoned, articulate, truthful, and rational responses while anti-Zionists attempt to justify murder, falsely claim to be victims when they are predators, and otherwise spread stupidity and lies about Israel.

Originally Posted by DanaC

How can you see a list of dead children and lay the blame at the door of their grieving parents, refusing to lay any of the responsibility at the doors of those who killed them? Answer: because the life of twelve year old Palestinian is worth less to you than the life of a twelve year old Israeli. The life of an eighteen month old Palestinian toddler, is worth less to you than the life of an Israeli soldier. The life of a Palestinian is worth less to you than the life of a dog.

The life of a 12 year old so-called Palestinian or that of a toddler is worth as much as the life of any other 12 year old. I think it's a tragedy that the so-called Palestinian people don't value the lives of their children and place them in harm's way and endanger them by attacking Israel and then hiding amongst them. It's a shame that they want to kill Jews more than they love their children and that they raise their children to strap bombs to themselves and kill Jews.

The one who killed them is not the guy who fired the missile in response to a terrorist act. The one who killed them is the terrorist who endangered them by hiding amongst them.

In L.A. a year or two ago, a guy shot up a bunch of cops and came outside holding his 1 year old baby in front of himself as a human shield. He was the aggressor. He attacked the police. And he endangered his baby by using her as a human shield. The baby was killed and the death of that baby did not rest on the shoulders of the police who were trying to take this murderer out, it rests on the shoulders of the guy who started shooting at police in the first place. In this example, if the police used his child as a human shield, they would not be endangering his child, but if the murderer uses the child he would.

[DanaC]

If my neighbor was shooting everyone in the neighborhood on a shooting spree for no apparent reason, and I picked up his own child to use as a human shield, there would be no fault in it.

I think you just blew my mind Radar. The fact that its his own child doesn't make it acceptable for you to put it at risk by using it as a shield. What an outrageous statement to make. I am appalled.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I think you just blew my mind Radar. The fact that its his own child doesn't make it acceptable for you to put it at risk by using it as a shield. What an outrageous statement to make. I am appalled.

I wouldn't be putting the child at risk by using him as a human shield. His father would be putting him at risk if he kept shooting my direction while I was holding his child.

[Ibby]

Radar, I speak Chinese. And I know for certain that how ever many thousand years ago, there WAS no chinese identity of any sort, before Qin Shi Huang Di unified china. As I already said, if you could have been bothered to read, before Qin Shi Huang Di commanded a unified writing style for all of his domain, not only did each former nation-state have its own independent language, but its own completely different identity and culture. We aren't talking, like, an athens-sparta kind of difference, where they were separate but still both greek... we're talking, like, the difference between brazil and italy. Possibly some common linguistic roots way back there somewhere, but... utterly separate cultures. Then, imagine some dictator took over both italy and brazil, and decreed that they had to write the same way, even if they didnt say everything the same way. Hundreds of years later, portugese and italian would become part of the same language family, rather than separate languages, right?

Look, you are not going to win this one, radar. All the historical evidence is against you. Before there was a china, there absolutely were NO chinese. Only long after Qin Shi Huang Di unified what is now china were there any chinese people.

Simply picking out one word from my entire post and saying, nolookthatischinese, is both intellectually dishonest and just plain stupid.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Radar, I speak Chinese. And I know for certain that how ever many thousand years ago, there WAS no chinese identity of any sort, before Qin Shi Huang Di unified china. As I already said, if you could have been bothered to read, before Qin Shi Huang Di commanded a unified writing style for all of his domain, not only did each former nation-state have its own independent language, but its own completely different identity and culture. We aren't talking, like, an athens-sparta kind of difference, where they were separate but still both greek... we're talking, like, the difference between brazil and italy. Possibly some common linguistic roots way back there somewhere, but... utterly separate cultures. Then, imagine some dictator took over both italy and brazil, and decreed that they had to write the same way, even if they didnt say everything the same way. Hundreds of years later, portugese and italian would become part of the same language family, rather than separate languages, right?

Look, you are not going to win this one, radar. All the historical evidence is against you. Before there was a china, there absolutely were NO chinese. Only long after Qin Shi Huang Di unified what is now china were there any chinese people.

Simply picking out one word from my entire post and saying, nolookthatischinese, is both intellectually dishonest and just plain stupid.

Historical evidence proves that the language spoken by the Han Chinese (before the unification of all the kingdoms of China) was mandarin Chinese. Anything you say to the contrary is false. So knock yourself out if you want.

[DanaC]

Don't try looking for logic Ibram. You're talking to a man who deems it acceptable to use children as human shields.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Don't try looking for logic Ibram. You're talking to a man who deems it acceptable to use children as human shields.

You are hardly in a position to judge the logic of others or even to discuss logic. As an anti-Zionist, you are immune to logic and reason and have no ability to grasp reality or truth.

[queequeger]

Yeah, but only if their parents are dicks. Sins of the father and all that.

WARNING:
Israeli and (white) American children: not OK for human shield use.

[piercehawkeye45]

So if I ban guns and Radar revolts I get to use his children as body shields? Nice...

But anyways, Radar, I want you to answer these questions with zero bullshit.

1) Your argument for Israel becoming a state is because their was an Israeli state 2,000 years ago and the Jews should return to their home. Now, the Lakota People of Minnesota and North and South Dakota had been living in that area for long time, I haven't seen any dates of when they moved in. But in the late 1700s and early 1800s white settlers moved in and either killed them or forced them to live in reservations. Now, you are saying that Israel should get its state back after 2,000 years, why aren't you fighting for a Lakota state of only losing their land of 250 years? Remember, like the Jews, the Lakota people have been living in this area when it has been under foreign occupation as well. For example, I am good friends with someone of Lakota decent and he goes to my school.

2) Igoring a larger state of Palestine, the people living in Palestine have been living in that area and have owned property there for over 3,000 years (Jews living in Palestine are considered Palestinians), do you not believe in a human right of owning property? Those people have owned land whether they were under foreign control or not, and you are justifying the forced movement of over 4 million refugees. How can this be with your strong libertarian influences. I, and I'm sure you wouldn't either, would not give up my house so the Lakota people could move back in, why should the Palestinian people give up their personal property for people that have not lived there for 2,000 years (assuming most Jews immigrated, which is highly true)?

3) You have justified Israel's actions with the thought that a few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch. A very few amount of Palestinians (less than 1 in 1,000) have resorted to terrorist like actions and many Palestinians look down upon these actions but have zero means of stopping them. Now, are you willing to say it is OK for you to be bombed (this includes everyone you love) because of the actions of Bush and the neo-cons or are you going to stop them yourself? The choice is yours.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

So if I ban guns and Radar revolts I get to use his children as body shields? Nice...

But anyways, Radar, I want you to answer these questions with zero bullshit.

1) Your argument for Israel becoming a state is because their was an Israeli state 2,000 years ago and the Jews should return to their home.

False. My argument for Israel becoming a state AGAIN has nothing to do with it being a state earlier, though having a small portion of the land that was historically the homeland of the Jews is cool. My argument for Israel becoming a state was that the rightful owners (the U.K.) GAVE the land to the Jews to build a new homeland in a portion of their historical one.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Now, the Lakota People of Minnesota and North and South Dakota had been living in that area for long time, I haven't seen any dates of when they moved in. But in the late 1700s and early 1800s white settlers moved in and either killed them or forced them to live in reservations. Now, you are saying that Israel should get its state back after 2,000 years, why aren't you fighting for a Lakota state of only losing their land of 250 years? Remember, like the Jews, the Lakota people have been living in this area when it has been under foreign occupation as well. For example, I am good friends with someone of Lakota decent and he goes to my school.

This is unrelated to my reasons for supporting the legitimate state of Israel. But even so, the Indians did not ever own land. Indians didn't even believe land could be owned. They thought of land as a living organism that belonged to whatever god they happened to believe in.

Land can't be stolen from those who never owned it.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

2) Igoring a larger state of Palestine, the people living in Palestine have been living in that area and have owned property there for over 3,000 years (Jews living in Palestine are considered Palestinians), do you not believe in a human right of owning property? Those people have owned land whether they were under foreign control or not, and you are justifying the forced movement of over 4 million refugees. How can this be with your strong libertarian influences. I, and I'm sure you wouldn't either, would not give up my house so the Lakota people could move back in, why should the Palestinian people give up their personal property for people that have not lived there for 2,000 years (assuming most Jews immigrated, which is highly true)?

The so-called Palestinian people did not live there for 3,000 years and most certainly NEVER owned any of the land. If I build a house on your land without your knowledge and live there for 40 years, I don't have any legitimate claim to your land. Also, your laughable claim that the Jews had moved away for 2,000 years is entirely false.

I certainly support private property ownership. In fact, private property ownership is the foundation of all human rights.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

3) You have justified Israel's actions with the thought that a few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch. A very few amount of Palestinians (less than 1 in 1,000) have resorted to terrorist like actions and many Palestinians look down upon these actions but have zero means of stopping them. Now, are you willing to say it is OK for you to be bombed (this includes everyone you love) because of the actions of Bush and the neo-cons or are you going to stop them yourself? The choice is yours.

Your 1 in a thousand numbers are ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of so-called Palestinian people support the murder of Jews, and deny the right of Israel to exist. The number who been involved in planning, assisting, or carrying out attacks against Israeli Jews is closer to 2-5% than 1%.

The percentage is irrelevant though. Those who don't take part in the attacks shelter, and protect those who do. This makes them just as guilty as those doing it. The so-called Palestinian people are endangering their own people by hiding among them after attacking Jews.

Israel is fully capable of killing each and every single Muslim in the middle-east without any help from America. The only reason Israel doesn't do this is because they aren't interested in conquest, in taking what others have, in killing Muslims, or in doing anything other than living in peace on their own honestly acquired land (all of the land they hold). Israel will do whatever it takes for this to happen, whether they are extending a hand of friendship or a gun to put a bullet through those who would destroy them.

Peace would exist tomorrow if the so-called Palestinians would just stop killing Jews. The problem is they aren't interested in peace. They are only interested in killing Jews and wiping Israel off the map which will NEVER happen. Israel will be around even after America is gone.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Radar

False. My argument for Israel becoming a state AGAIN has nothing to do with it being a state earlier, though having a small portion of the land that was historically the homeland of the Jews is cool. My argument for Israel becoming a state was that the rightful owners (the U.K.) GAVE the land to the Jews to build a new homeland in a portion of their historical one.

The so-called Palestinian people did not live there for 3,000 years and most certainly NEVER owned any of the land. If I build a house on your land without your knowledge and live there for 40 years, I don't have any legitimate claim to your land. Also, your laughable claim that the Jews had moved away for 2,000 years is entirely false.

So the arabs that were booted out NEVER built houses with their own money, on land they were given from the UK, legally and with the knowledge of the UK government?

Oh, and while we're at it, the Diaspora never happened. In fact, when Israel was founded, the Israelis didn't move in on hundreds of boats and planes like we've seen in pictures... they came out of their caves and rose from the mud they'd been hiding in.

Originally Posted by Radar

I certainly support private property ownership. In fact, private property ownership is the foundation of all human rights.

Unless it's Palestinians, then their 'ownership' is not a right

Originally Posted by Radar

Your 1 in a thousand numbers are ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of so-called Palestinian people support the murder of Jews, and deny the right of Israel to exist. The number who been involved in planning, assisting, or carrying out attacks against Israeli Jews is closer to 2-5% than 1%.

So you're saying that of the five or so million folks living in Israel, 125,000-250,000 of them are fighting Israel? Jesus, why aren't they winning!?

Originally Posted by Radar

The percentage is irrelevant though. Those who don't take part in the attacks shelter, and protect those who do. This makes them just as guilty as those doing it. The so-called Palestinian people are endangering their own people by hiding among them after attacking Jews.

Here we get to your "If I use your child for a human shield, you're not allowed to get mad" argument.

Originally Posted by Radar

Israel is fully capable of killing each and every single Muslim in the middle-east without any help from America. The only reason Israel doesn't do this is because they aren't interested in conquest, in taking what others have, in killing Muslims, or in doing anything other than living in peace on their own honestly acquired land (all of the land they hold). Israel will do whatever it takes for this to happen, whether they are extending a hand of friendship or a gun to put a bullet through those who would destroy them.

Peace would exist tomorrow if the so-called Palestinians would just stop killing Jews. The problem is they aren't interested in peace. They are only interested in killing Jews and wiping Israel off the map which will NEVER happen. Israel will be around even after America is gone.

Because it's the chosen land. Chosen by the UN.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by queequeger

So the arabs that were booted out NEVER built houses with their own money, on land they were given from the UK, legally and with the knowledge of the UK government?

They built houses with their own money on land they never owned. In fact the UK didn't give any land to those people until 1947. The ones who lived on the wrong side of the line had to move out.

Originally Posted by queequeger

Oh, and while we're at it, the Diaspora never happened. In fact, when Israel was founded, the Israelis didn't move in on hundreds of boats and planes like we've seen in pictures... they came out of their caves and rose from the mud they'd been hiding in.

Yes, the majority of Jews were not in Israel and came back. But there were always Jews in Israel for every minute of the last 3,000 years. In fact they were the majority for most of those years.

Originally Posted by queequeger

Unless it's Palestinians, then their 'ownership' is not a right

Wrong. They have a right to private property ownership too. Building a house on someone else's property does not grant you ownership. They can also lose land in military disputes as has happened for thousands of years. When they attack Israel and they lose land, they have no valid complaints.

Originally Posted by queequeger

So you're saying that of the five or so million folks living in Israel, 125,000-250,000 of them are fighting Israel? Jesus, why aren't they winning!?

Nice try playing with the numbers. We were talking about the numbers among the so-called Palestinian people who do not live within Israel, but fine if you want to talk about the ones who are in Israel we can do that too.

The population of Israel is 6,426,679. Of that 16% are Muslim (1,028,268) people. I said 2-5% of the so-called Palestinian people actively take part in attacks against Jews (whether it's planning, doing paperwork, buying supplies, recruiting kids and teaching them to hate Jews, etc.) 2% of that number is 20,565. I think this is a fair number.

Originally Posted by queequeger

Here we get to your "If I use your child for a human shield, you're not allowed to get mad" argument.

If it's ok for you to shoot at me because I'm a Zionist, it's equally ok for me to put your child between you and me.

Originally Posted by queequeger

Because it's the chosen land. Chosen by the UN.

As well they should...and it was the U.K. and the U.N. working together to do the right thing...which they did.

[Radar]

MYTH

“Palestine was always an Arab country.”

FACT

The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.3

The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."5

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."7

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."8

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.