DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on November 30, 2011, 03:56:44 AM

Title: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: BSB on November 30, 2011, 03:56:44 AM
Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies

When the Patriots staff sits down to draw up a game plan against an opponent they have at their disposal information, reports, tape, on the skills and abilities of that teams individual players, and how that opponent utilizes them. The formations they use, recent trends, successes, failures, injury report, and so forth. For example, this weekend they are playing the Colts, the Colts as they are right now. Not the historical Colts of Johnny U. or Payton Manning, but this Colt team, with its players, and its skills and weaknesses.

When we engage an enemy we do the same thing, if we want to be successful that is. In this war against global terrorists we identify the players, their skills, and how they are being utilized right now. We gather intelligence, watch as things shift, try and stay as much on top of it as we can. We are not fighting some monolithic enemy. We are fighting a very complicated, wide spread, ever changing multiplicity of people, particulars, events, formats, societies, beliefes, economies, geographies, etc. etc.

If we want to lose, the best thing to do would be see them as one, Islamonazies, and respond accordingly.


BSB
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 30, 2011, 12:03:00 PM
That is true. We cannot fight "Islam". It does little good to call them all "islamonazis" and go ape on all disagreements we have with Muslims.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 01, 2011, 05:18:04 PM

http://thereligionofpeace.com/ (http://thereligionofpeace.com/)
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 01, 2011, 05:23:53 PM
That is true. We cannot fight "Islam". It does little good to call them all "islamonazis" and go ape on all disagreements we have with Muslims.

It also does little good to try and equate Islamonazis with Islam as well.  Contrary to popular delusional leftist spin, we're not at war with Islam.  Never have been


Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Plane on December 01, 2011, 05:52:14 PM
That is true. We cannot fight "Islam". It does little good to call them all "islamonazis" and go ape on all disagreements we have with Muslims.



Do you belive that there is no distinction to be made between peacefull people of Islam and people of Islam who want to go to war?
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2011, 06:29:34 PM
I believe that there must be a distinction, but that it is not being properly made.

Calling them "Islamonazis" is none too clever and not accurate. Similar to making up a term like 'Christocapitalists". or "Petroleosatanists".

Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 01, 2011, 06:45:35 PM
If the term fits and IS accurate, what's the problem?  Let's focus on the small minority of folks we are at war with vs the red herring deflection of all of Islam, or all of Capitalists, or all of Petreleolists, whoever they are      ::)
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2011, 08:27:06 PM
The term is insulting and obnoxious. It is like calling the Germans the Huns or referring to Britain and 'perfidious Albion". It does not define the opposition, it is just a way of vilifying the opposition.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 01, 2011, 08:33:05 PM
Alot of accurate terms can be considered obnoxious, by those that don't agree.  Doesn't make them less accurate, I'm afraid
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2011, 08:38:26 PM
Insulting the enemy does not make him weaker. The term "Islamonazi" is insulting to Muslims, like calling Americans "capitalist running dogs", or the Russians "godless Communists".

If you call the same people "Muslim fundamentalists" that is an adequate description.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 01, 2011, 08:46:45 PM
Sorry, I have no problem insulting anyone that wants to target and kill innocent men, women, and children, because we dare to influence others from looking away from their prescious mutated religious ways.  In fact there are far more appropriate yet harsher terms I could apply, but Islamonazis will suffice for now

and hint, that doesn't equate to all of Muslim people.  Its specific to Islamic militants/terrorists,....just in case you were going to try to pull out "those Muslims" card.  That's the difference from your flawed use of "Americans" as "Capitalist running dogs"
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: BT on December 01, 2011, 08:52:50 PM
How would you differentiate between a Muslim and an Islamonazi if you passed them on the street?
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Plane on December 01, 2011, 08:55:33 PM
How would you differentiate between a Muslim and an Islamonazi if you passed them on the street?

  The Islamonatzi is the one that knifed you.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Plane on December 01, 2011, 08:59:38 PM
Insulting the enemy does not make him weaker. The term "Islamonazi" is insulting to Muslims, like calling Americans "capitalist running dogs", or the Russians "godless Communists".

If you call the same people "Muslim fundamentalists" that is an adequate description.

I always thought that "capitalist running dogs", sounded very funny, perhaps it lost something in translation.

The ones we really want to focus negative attention on are the violent ones , do you consider Islam to be fundamentaly violent? If you don't then "Muslim fundamentalists" might be a term with the wrong focus.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: BT on December 01, 2011, 09:53:23 PM
How would you differentiate between a Muslim and an Islamonazi if you passed them on the street?

  The Islamonatzi is the one that knifed you.

So an action on their part is required for the purposes of correct labeling?
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Plane on December 01, 2011, 10:16:04 PM
How would you differentiate between a Muslim and an Islamonazi if you passed them on the street?

  The Islamonatzi is the one that knifed you.

So an action on their part is required for the purposes of correct labeling?

  Absolutely!

   Someone who states a negative opinion of me has not justified an assault in return.

     Peacefull people who disagree with me , no matter how strongly, deserve my respect for their preserving the peace.

      Inciting violence is the first step beyond the pale , comitting violence is the exact target.

     Lets sell paper American flags for them to burn , and effigys of our leaders made of paper and stuffed with candy.
     I see that for years we had bemused toleration for Iranians shouting their wish of death on us at every government sponsored event, why not be tolerant? We realy know that every Iranian that knows the truth has to shout just as loud as the ignorant.

      The A-bomb they are building , that is more like a serious threat. Flying planes into buildings , that justifys retaliation and even preemption.

       But if they wanted to debate the questions with extreme passion, that would be a positive development.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: BT on December 01, 2011, 10:43:43 PM
So being called a racist when you are not a racist is not an act of aggression on the part of the speaker?

Would you be wrong to resent the slur?
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Plane on December 01, 2011, 10:52:30 PM
So being called a racist when you are not a racist is not an act of aggression on the part of the speaker?

Would you be wrong to resent the slur?


  Would you draw no line between verbal assault and phisical assault?


    I would resnt a slur worst if I deserved it , being offered a shoe that can't fit I don't have to resent so much .
     In the right circumstances I could possibly respond with devastateing humor, but I can be dissed without looseing controll.

     Well so far I can ,thank God.

      There used to be a code of duels , and for the price of an occasional violent death most people learned to be quite polite most of the time.

     The Code Duello could come back into fashion, do we want it?
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 01, 2011, 11:07:51 PM
How would you differentiate between a Muslim and an Islamonazi if you passed them on the street?

I wouldn't, because its the actions that differentiate them, not their appearance
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: BT on December 01, 2011, 11:34:58 PM
Quote
Would you draw no line between verbal assault and phisical assault?

Absolutely, but both are assaults nonetheless.

Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 01, 2011, 11:39:15 PM
How would you differentiate between a Muslim and an Islamonazi if you passed them on the street?

In 1941 how would you differentiate between a German and a German Nazi if you were in a swimming pool with them?
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: BT on December 02, 2011, 12:12:51 AM
Quote
In 1941 how would you differentiate between a German and a German Nazi if you were in a swimming pool with them?
Quote

I wouldn't be able to. I also wouldn't be able to differentiate between a democrat and a republican in that same pool.

Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2011, 01:22:21 AM
I hope Xo is paying attention
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2011, 01:41:10 AM
If you do not like the term "Muslim fundamentalist", then the term "Muslim terrorist" would surely be adequate. Or, if you prefer, Muslim fanatics, Muslim zealots.

They are not Nazis, they do not propose concentration camps, they are not racist in the sense that the Nazis were, they do not preach that "Arabs" are a master race. Islamonazi is a term that pretty much reveals the ignorance of the person using it.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: kimba1 on December 02, 2011, 03:03:45 AM
actually tagging islam with nazi it not very off. alot of muslims LOVE hitler and never thought negative of him. true story. I asked a friend of mine about hitler and he thought he`s was alright. I had to break it to him that hitler in america is not thought of favorably. he was in very shocked.

the americanized muslim will say otherwised but if you ask a new arrived muslim you likely get another answer
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2011, 04:19:02 AM
Thank you, Kimba.  Perhaps Xo was not applying the ignorant label accurately
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 02, 2011, 08:06:49 AM
First Watch This

Chants in Iran: Death to America, the infidel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk#)


Then This

Adolf Hitler speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5qyQpfwBk0#ws)

Both Haters Of Jews, Both With Hopes of World Domination, Both @ War/Hate United States




Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: kimba1 on December 02, 2011, 09:49:57 AM
well
the hating jews is not exactly an excclusive club. if you think about it. you gotta wonder why so many don`t like them originally. any complain today don`t count since it`s trendy. the bible was fairly pro-jewish and still quite afew christain don`t care for them.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 02, 2011, 10:21:24 AM
still quite afew christain don`t care for them.

"Not caring for them" & gassing millions of them like the German Nazis &
wanting to "wipe Israel off the map" like the IslamoNazis is quite a different thing.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: kimba1 on December 02, 2011, 10:25:41 AM
not saying the same, but a good start.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2011, 10:31:28 AM
wanting to "wipe Israel off the map" like the IslamoNazis is quite a different thing.
================================================
They don't want to kill the Israelis. At most they would prefer that they simply move elsewhere.

A FAIR settlement of WWII would have given European Jews a chunk of Austria or Germany. The Ottomans and Arabs were not to blame for the Nazi atrocities.

I am not going to waste my time with your stupid propaganda.

Calling Muslims "Islamonazis" is just stupid name-calling.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: kimba1 on December 02, 2011, 10:40:39 AM
this old arguement who owns that land tends to loose my sympathy when I found out the reason they look alike is because they used to have a common ancestry
arab in hebrew means cousin
I`m not saying they should get along,but find another excuse.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2011, 10:50:48 AM
The odds are that a DNA test would prove that the Palestinians have more Hebrew DNA than most Russian Jews.

People were conquered and reconquered for centuries in Palisrael. Anyone whose roots are there, regardless of religion, would likely have Caanaite, Philistine, Hebrew, Ehyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Arab and Turkish blood.

Awarding land based on DNA would be impossible.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2011, 11:09:39 AM
Calling Muslims "Islamonazis" is just stupid name-calling.

Says the racist "Uncle Tom" name calling professor 
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: BSB on December 02, 2011, 11:25:51 AM
"Calling Muslims "Islamonazis" is just stupid name-calling."

It's stupid name-calling, it's childish, and it puts a damper on interesting conversation. Further, it's the >kind< of thing that if everybody did it it would push the less conservative portion of Iran's population into the arms of the more conservative. The ongoing threats towards Iran has probably had that effect already. Anyone can become nationalistic when threatened long enough.

BSB
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: kimba1 on December 02, 2011, 12:05:47 PM
thats the thing about nomadics they tend to not stay the same race. look at the confederacy in south america those good old boys are as dark as they can get.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 02, 2011, 01:01:44 PM
They don't want to kill the Israelis.
Muslim Brotherhood rally vows to 'kill all Jews'
By OREN KESSLER
11/27/2011
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=247078 (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=247078)


Hamas enshrines this religious teaching in its Charter:
Article 7: 
"Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah's promise, whatever time it might take. The prophet [Muhammad] said: 'The time (of Resurrection) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!'" Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985

 
Hamas Video: Kill Christians and Jews "to the last one" 
Al Aqsa TV (Hamas)  Dec. 3, 2010 
Hamas: Kill Christians and Jews "to the last one" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI8-qb9M9A#)


"Jews are enemies of Allah and humanity - Kill them" 
"Jews are enemies of Allah and humanity - Kill them" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps9UEQO6tpU#)


Quran condemns Jews to extermination, "destruction of Jews" will bring "blessing"   
Source: Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), July 13, 2008 
Hamas cleric: "Destruction of Israel and Jews will bring blessing to world" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUG-Q2lp20s#)

Palestinian Authority cleric: Kill Jews (long version) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSEFQh88s5w#)

Palestinian Cleric wants to kill all jews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whU2qFd89fA#)

(http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/jews3.jpg)

Extermination of Jews will be good for humanity    
Source: Al-Rissala (Hamas weekly), Apr. 23, 2007 

In an article promoting the continued use of suicide terror in the official Hamas newspaper:
"We find occastional condemnation and denunciation of the resistance operations and bombings [suicide attacks], carried out by Hamas and the Palestinian resistance branches... [Eventually] everyone will know that we did this [suicide attacks] only because our Lord commanded so - 'I did it not of my own accord' [Quran] - and so that people will know that the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the world."
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2011, 01:08:19 PM
D'oh.....doncha hate when those facts keep getting in the way of some good pro-Islamonazi propoganda       8)
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2011, 01:58:54 PM
So now we have a contest between rightwing idiots and Muslim idiots to see which can say the dumbest stuff.

Fierce, but useless competition.

Hurling violent threats and nasty insults has been a practice in the Arab world for thousands of years. You are mere novices. I remain unimpressed. I have never considered Muslims or other True Believer types to be great thinkers. Of course, I am sure that your insults would never surpass theirs in Arabic.

But insults are not even what the struggle is all about.

If the Jews had not invaded and colonized Palestine, the world would be better off.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2011, 02:05:42 PM
A, there was no designated country of Palestine, for Israel to have invaded
B, there would have been no expanding of Israeli lands, had the surrounding Arab nations tried to push Israel into the sea

and the world would have been better off, had they not tried
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2011, 02:18:29 PM
Your knowledge of the history is abysmal. The British were assigned a mandate over Palestine after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. A British Lord named Balfour declared that Jews should be permitted to settle in Palestine, because he thought that it would benefit the Empire. And Jews began buying up land and settling there. After WWII, there was a flood of displaced Jews invading the place. The UN approved a partition of the territory between the Jews and the Palestinians.

It was stupid of the Arab states to attempt to expel the Jews at that point, because their armies were incompetent and they incorrectly assumed that the British were impartial. The Palestinians were mostly noncombatants in that war

Everyone knows what the new borders between Palestine and Israel will be, but Netanyahu keeps grabbing more land and making a real settlement impossible.

You are simply an ignorant victim of Zionist propaganda. It is a waste of time to discuss this with you.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2011, 02:30:47 PM
Your grasp of timelines is absymal

Israel was attacked by Arab nations
Israel defended itself, and took lands to better defend themselves

NOTHING WAS STOLEN

Chalk it up I suppose to being an ignorant victim of Palestinian propoganda
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2011, 04:16:23 PM
Yeah, and then they stole more lands to make the lands they stole the first time even more defensible. And now it is pretty clear that they intend to keep it all.

And it is not true that there never was a country called Palestine.

I have a coin from Palestine.

They are for sale online at http://www.palestinecoins.com/ (http://www.palestinecoins.com/)
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2011, 04:25:28 PM
LOL....as I said, you have both the radical Islamists and Paliestinians pleased at how you parrot their propoganda quite nicely.  Until Arab nations make a pact with each other and put Hamas and the like in their place, Israel has a right to maintain whatever defensive positions, and take whatever defensive actions, it deems necessary

Nor did I ever claim there was never an actual Palestine.  I made it very clear that when Israel returned to the region after WWII, there WAS NO COUNTRY OF PALESTINE ---> NO PALESTINIAN LAND FOR ISRAEL TO HAVE STOLEN

Fact remains, had no Arab nations tried to destroy Israel, we wouldn't be having this discussion, "and the world would have been better off"
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2011, 04:38:04 PM
Fact remains, had no Arab nations tried to destroy Israel, we wouldn't be having this discussion, "and the world would have been better off"

=============================================================
Yeah, like you have the ability to see the alternative future. It is very unlikely that the Palestinian State would have been allowed to exist. There was no Palestinian government at the time of the partition, because it was assumed that the entire mandate would have been turned over to all those living there unpartitioned until very near the time of the UN vote.



Israel has colonized most of the West Bank, which it is forbidden by the UN Charter to keep. There is not enough room for all the Jews that have come to live in Israel to do so on the original UN mandate territory.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 02, 2011, 05:25:18 PM
And it is not true that there never was a country called Palestine.

There was a British Mandate called Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine)
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2011, 05:49:58 PM
Fact remains, had no Arab nations tried to destroy Israel, we wouldn't be having this discussion, "and the world would have been better off"=============================================================
Yeah, like you have the ability to see the alternative future. It is very unlikely that the Palestinian State would have been allowed to exist.

Oh good gravy.....and what crystal ball tells you who would have prevented that??  the UN??  Egypt?? Jordan??

Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2011, 11:00:59 PM
Egypt already controlled Gaza before the war. It was largely unoccupied until the refugees arrived.

Palestine had no leaders, no government whatever when the partition occurred. Some of the Palestinians were driven out by Israelis, others were told to leave by the other Arab armies. A few managed to stay. But there was no self-government at all to replace the British, who simply pulled out and left.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 03, 2011, 01:34:28 AM
You still haven't answered the question......who would have prevented a Palestinian State??  If you're opining that it couldn't have existed before, why can it all of a sudden exist now??  You're making no sense

You do also realize that "Palestinian" at the time was more a reference to Palestinian Jew vs Palestinian Arab vs Palestinian Christian, correct?  That's probably why you're having trouble answering the question, much less ignoring the timeline of events
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 03, 2011, 12:22:13 PM
The UN plan was for there to be a peaceful transition. Instead there was an unplanned war. The Palestinians, by which I mean the Palestinian Arabs, both Christians and Muslim, were mostly driven out as refugees and the UN had no armed troops to end the violence and put things back to a prewar state. There were no Palestinian leaders and no way that Palestinians could choose any leadership.

You should find an impartial book and read it.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 03, 2011, 02:12:06 PM
The UN plan was for there to be a peaceful transition. Instead there was an unplanned war.

BY whom.....against whom again.....?  You keep omitting that pertinent fact in the timeline, to rant on Israel with the 100% flawed position of "stolen lands"


You should find an impartial book and read it.

Oh, the irony     ::)
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 03, 2011, 03:41:36 PM
The lands that were not granted to Israel in the partition were clearly stolen.

Annexation by conquest ended when the UN was organized. So did colonialization.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 03, 2011, 04:24:24 PM
The lands that were not granted to Israel in the partition were clearly stolen.

By the UN??  then your beef is with them, not Israel.  Israel was merely dfending itself, as such, nothing was "stolen"

Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 03, 2011, 08:47:06 PM
Israel was asked to evacuate the lands it seized,and refused.There are dozens of UN Resolutions about this. The issue got all mixed up in Cold War politics, then the War in Korea started, and attention turned away.

Israel knew and still knows what the boundaries were.

There are several good books on this that I read long ago. I can't recall the titles.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 03, 2011, 09:45:27 PM
There is absolutely no rational reason for Israel to vacate lands that better defend themselves, tajen in DEFENSE of their very existance.  They were not stolen to begin with, and until the threat against them is removed, there is no reason for them to be vacated.

Simple as that

Which brings us back full circle...had the Arabs not tried to push Israel into the sea, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and the world would have been better off
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 04, 2011, 05:09:02 PM
and had lord Balfour not decided to give away what was not his to give away, there would be no Israel in palestine, and we still would not be having this discussion. 
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 05, 2011, 12:18:28 AM
Problem is a) there was no country of Palestine where Israel was allowed to return, (no land stolen by Israel), and b) it was the UN that allocated the land to Israel, (again, no land stolen by Israel)

So once again, your beef apparently is with the UN
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 05, 2011, 08:28:59 AM
you have entered the land of sirs and no longer make any sense at all.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on December 05, 2011, 08:37:53 AM
you have entered the land of sirs and no longer make any sense at all.

makes total logical sense....but nice cop-out when facts deny your leftist talking points
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Amianthus on December 05, 2011, 12:06:19 PM
you have entered the land of sirs and no longer make any sense at all.

The original Palestinian Mandate was issued by the League of Nations, and the later creation of the state of Israel was issued by the United Nations. While Lord Balfour's writings might have had some influence, your complaint should fall squarely on these two organizations for the creation of Israel.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: kimba1 on December 05, 2011, 12:13:24 PM
I remember somebady pointing out when Isreal was made it`s was literally just a chunk of sand then with constant work from the jews the land started to produce some serious fruit .shortly after that the palestinians started to say they are the real owners.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 05, 2011, 02:50:53 PM
Wow....I think this huge influx of so many posters making no sense at all, has prompted Xo to take a little siesta.  That or he's busy, I suppose        ;)
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 05, 2011, 04:27:14 PM
the Jews claimed it was 'a land with no people' for a 'people with no land', ie the Jews. then they bought in tons of money and started to farm land that had not been farmed for centuries. but if a person owns a piece of land, that does not affect the country that it belongs to. if i decide that my house and lot should be an independent country or a part of Ireland or Canada, that is not a legitimate argument, and no one will take me seriously.

nationhood and land ownership are different things. the British were given a mandate by the league of nations to act as caretakers for the current residents, which at the time of the mandate, were mostly Arabs. the Palestinians have been the real owners of at least some of the land for centuries. the Jews bought a lot of property from absentee landlords when the Turks were forced out by the British.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 05, 2011, 04:46:59 PM
There was no country of Palestine (analogus to Canada or Ireland), when the UN allocated the land for Israel's return.  Period
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 06, 2011, 11:31:35 AM
The truth about Israel's 'stolen' land 

Much of the world buys the line – peddled by the Palestinians and the Arab Muslim world and, indeed, many Western countries – that paints Israel as the bad "Goliath" that "stole" the land from the "Palestinians."

Israel gave Gaza self-rule in 1994, unilaterally withdrawing the last of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. Hamas, voted into power via free elections in 2006, fought and defeated their political and military rival, Fatah, to seize de facto control of Gaza in 2007. In the past eight years, (article written in 2009) Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel – 7,000 of them after Israel's 2005 withdrawal. With improved technology – reportedly assisted by Iran – Hamas' rockets can now fly 24 miles before impact and explosion, thereby threatening, injuring and killing more and more Israelis living in southern Israel.

But why the "disproportionate" response by Israel? Reportedly, more than 600 Palestinians have been killed, some civilians. Set aside for the moment that Hamas' charter specifically calls for the "obliteration" of the state of Israel. And set aside the fact that the Palestinian "militants" fight in heavily populated areas, assuring, indeed encouraging (for PR purposes) civilian casualties.

We turn our attention to the "stolen" allegation.

Israel lies in the ancient Fertile Crescent's southwest corner, with some of the oldest archeological evidence of primitive towns and agriculture. Historians and archeologists believe the Hebrews probably arrived in the area in the second millennium B.C. The nation itself was formed as the Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus, believed to be in the late 13th century B.C.

The 12 tribes of Israel united in about 1050 B.C., forming the Kingdom of Israel. David, the second king of Israel, established Jerusalem as Israel's national capital 3,000 years ago. Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for a millennium.  (heps to debunk the notion that it was only Palestinians that "have been the real owners of at least some of the land for centuries")

After conquests by Babylonians, Persians and Greeks, an independent Jewish kingdom was briefly revived in 168 B.C., but Rome took control in the next century, renaming the land of Judea "Palestine" after the Philistines, historical enemies of the Israelites.

Invading Arabs conquered the land from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) in A.D. 638 and attracted Arab settlers. Within a few centuries, the Arab language and Islam prevailed, but a Jewish minority remained. After a brief period of prosperity, waves of invasions and changes of control followed, including rule by the non-Arab empires of the Seljuks, Mamelukes and European crusaders, before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 until 1918.

The crusaders massacred thousands of Jews, along with Muslims, in the 11th century. But soon thereafter, European Jews established centers of Jewish learning and commerce. By the time the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine in the 16th century, according to British reports, as many as 15,000 Jews lived in Safed, which was a center of rabbinical learning. Many more Jews lived in Jerusalem, Hebron, Acre and other locations. By the middle of the 19th century, Jews constituted a significant presence – often a majority – in many towns.

Still, in the 19th century, the Holy Land looked mostly like a vast wasteland. When Jews began to return to their "promised land" early in the 20th century, the desert literally began to bloom under their industry. Arabs followed, coming in large numbers for the jobs and prosperity.

After four centuries of Ottoman rule, Britain took the land in 1917 and pledged in the Balfour Declaration to support a Jewish national homeland there. In 1920, the British Palestine Mandate was recognized. A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 effectively divided the mandated territory into two parts. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, would later become the Arab Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. The other portion, comprising the territory west of the Jordan River, was administered as Palestine under provisions that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

The United Nations, in 1947, partitioned the area into separate Jewish and Arab states along meandering and indefensible boundaries. The Arab world, insisting that any Jewish claim to Palestine was invalid, staunchly refused to compromise or even discuss the subject.

When Israel's independence was declared in 1948, Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq combined to crush the one-day-old country. They lost. Still, Egypt occupied most of the Gaza Strip, and Transjordan (calling itself "Jordan") held most of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem. Neither Arab country gave the "Palestinians" a state.

The word "Palestinian," as employed today, is a relatively recent term. Until the end of the British mandate over Palestine, in 1948, all inhabitants of the area west of the Jordan River were known as "Palestinians." A Jewish person living in what is now Israel was a "Palestinian Jew." An Arab living in the area was a "Palestinian Arab." Likewise, a Christian was known as a "Palestinian Christian."

Israel won more land after a series of wars, land since returned or offered for return in exchange for peace. 

The Jews "stole" nothing (http://The Jews "stole" nothing)
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 06, 2011, 12:52:44 PM
Egypt held Gaza since way before there were any Zionists in Palestine.

Israel stole everything that the UN did not grant them. They took full advantage of the Arab countries incompetence and disunity, like some thief rolling a drunk.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 06, 2011, 01:36:27 PM
Your ignorance of history and timelines shows no bounds I see.  So, when are we supposed to return California to Mexico, Louisiana to France, and the rest of the country to Native American Indians??  Why aren't you having a hissy fit at what we stole, from the apparent incompotence of those folks??

And the ganging up of messers Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, & Iraq to try and take Israel out, is hardly disunity, though definately military incompotence
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 06, 2011, 02:30:57 PM
The way in which the Arab countries attacked was extremely disorganized.

IN terms of international law, keeping territory gained in conquest became illegal only with the UN Charter, so all that stuff about Indians does not apply. Israel signed the UN Charter and is obliged to give back what it took. Colonization became a no-no as well, so Israel's colonies (settlements) in the West Bank are also illicit. Israel knows this, which is why it refuses to simply annex the territory. If it did that, it would have to give the Palestinians a vote, as that is the right of all citizens.

You are far too warped by Zionist propaganda to bother with. I shall let you bask in your ignorance. You are not worth the bother.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: sirs on December 06, 2011, 02:42:22 PM
The way in which the Arab countries attacked was extremely disorganized.

Thank you.  You are far too warped by palestinian propaganda to bother with. I shall let you bask in your ignorance. You are not worth the bother.
Title: Re: Belichick Vs. The Islamonazies? Not if We want to Win
Post by: Plane on December 07, 2011, 12:46:55 AM
Quote
Israel is home to a highly diverse population from many different ethnic, religious, cultural and social backgrounds. Of its 6.3 million citizens, over one million, constituting nearly 20 percent of Israel's population, are not Jewish. Almost all are Arab Israelis, mainly residents from before the establishment of the State of Israel or their descendants.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/arabs2.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/arabs2.html)

Quote
In recent years, there has also been an upsurge of racism in Israel against Arab citizens. ACRI struggles against the discrimination of Arab citizens, through legal, educational, and public advocacy efforts.

http://www.acri.org.il/en/?cat=37 (http://www.acri.org.il/en/?cat=37)