It is reasonable that the Jews should not be asked to be a minority in their part of Israel. Jews have had some bad experiences being a minority. Jews have so screwed with the Palestinians that I have my doubts that the Jews would be safe in a Palestinian majority state. So I don't think the one state solution is realistic.
Israel's creation made Palestinians victims of Holocaust
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
maybe we should re program the palestinians, those mindless drones.
by firing at the power station that provides them electricity? yeah, very logical.
since the jewish people got there and founded the new isreal they have treated the palestienians like shit from day one. you oppress a people guess what odds are they will get violent against their oppressers
Then they should not have moved to an area that was already populated.
As it is, they are merely mirroring the injustice that was done to them elsewhere. And not making Israel any safer.
You don't move to the Middle East and claim not to want to live with Arabs. It would be like an Arab moving to Europe and complaining about he did not want to live with Christians
Thanks I've bookmarked them.
Last edited:
It's too bad they didn't hand over some old Ottoman land over to the Zionists in 1919 when they had a chance. Jews would have been poor in the ME - when Hitler came to power many would have fled to this land, perhaps even avoiding a holocost if Germany could have connected his empire to it. Then dumped all europe jews there(that was the original "solution").
But it didn't happen. Shit happens - deal with it.
But it didn't happen. Shit happens - deal with it.
I think the whole notion of nation states in the ME is a failure. They should have remained as one entity.
More proof of my ability to predict the future:
I concluded my post 215 with:
"Your turn to resume name calling instead of thinking or commenting on the effective defensive plan I suggested."
And sure enough, again instead of rational thought, or discussion of my proposed plan for a more effective protection of Israel, you replied (a full copy of your 222 post repling to post215 follows):
(Last three words of your post not bold in the original.)
I concluded my post 215 with:
"Your turn to resume name calling instead of thinking or commenting on the effective defensive plan I suggested."
And sure enough, again instead of rational thought, or discussion of my proposed plan for a more effective protection of Israel, you replied (a full copy of your 222 post repling to post215 follows):
(Last three words of your post not bold in the original.)
Last edited by a moderator:
name calling require a thinking process. therefor your first assumption is wrong. you said we control the palestinians- i asserted they are mindless drones.
where is name calling in that? you get insulted every time you dont get what you want?
youre quite a hypocrite billy t - "instead of rational thought".
both of those can be true
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
No, merely an unreasonable person. And as the old saying goes: "It is reasonable to attempt to learn to deal with things as they are. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable person."
Entire nations have engaged in very angry and violent wars, and eventually made peace. There's no reason it could not happen in this case. What's the alternative anyway: to let them keep fighting until one side annihilates the other? I don't think one has to be a particularly unreasonable person to decide that this is something that needs to be changed!
The most profound analysis I've seen of the intractability of the enmity between Jews and Muslims was to point out that Judaism is very much a religion of this world (heaven is aeons away in their mythology and most of them don't give it much thought) whereas Islam is strongly focused on the afterlife. That's the gap which some "unreasonable person" needs to bridge. Muslims don't think dead children are a big deal because they've all happily just gone off to some mythical "better place." Jews think dead children are the worst thing that can happen to a family or a people.
And its earlier name during the Roman Era, Gallia, comes from the Gauls, a Celtic people. The descendants of the Franks and Gauls are indeed the French.
They are not that focused on the afterlife. Muslim mothers scream and wale over their dead children just like any other mothers. The after life is a consolation prize.
People being willing to die for a cause is an interesting phenomena. Some combination of, a egotistical desire to be a hero, a worthy cause, nothing left to live for, and denial about the nature or likelihood of death, is needed in order to be willing to die for a cause.
What fucking nonsense! How dare you say that Muslims don't care much for dead children, just because we believe in an afterlife? I know Muslims who have been devastated over losing their children, and they reacted to it just as sadly as other people of different faiths. You're a complete -please avoid personal attacks-SG for making such an asinine statement. Think next time before you speak on behalf of the personal matters for 1.5 billion people around the world.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not very faithful then, are they? If they truly believed in heaven, why the sorrow?
There does seem to be something about Islam that influences people to die for the cause.
There does seem to be something about Islam that influences people to die for the cause.
Why the sorrow? Because we are human... scary that I have to say that. Yes, heaven is there and good people will go there, but as human beings mourning is a natural thing Muslims do when a close one dies. There are various teachings regarding mourning and the loss of life.
Fuck off back to Turkey if you don't like the West.
Actually, the reverse is true. In 1400 years, how many Muslims have died for "a cause"?
So it can only be people from outside "Western" countries who critizise foreign policies of the US and the UK?
- Status