It's quite ironic that most of the supporters of Zionism here are also anti-immigration... How do the Zionist supporters feel about the way Zionists took over Palestine? As detailed below. Does it square up with how you think immigrants to a nation should treat their 'hosts'? Would you advise Muslims coming to Australia to take lessons from the Zionist methodology? Since after all you do support Zionism and therefore consider it to be a good practise to emulate right???  :)

-----

Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote:

  But the major cause of tension and violence throughout the period 1882-1914 was not accidents, misunderstandings or the attitudes and behaviors of either side, but objective historical conditions and the conflicting interests and goals of the two populations. The Arabs sought instinctively to retain the Arab and Muslim character of the region and to maintain their position as its rightful inhabitants; the Zionists sought radically to change the status quo, buy as much land as possible, settle on it, and eventually turn an Arab-populated country into a Jewish homeland.

   For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt.

Morris provides excerpts from three letters written in 1882 by these first arrivals:

   * Vladimir (Ze'ev) Dubnow, one of the Biluim wrote to his brother, the historian Simon Dubnow, in October 1882: "The ultimate goal ... is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years .... The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland." (Dubnow himself shortly afterward returned to Russia.)
   * Ben-Yehuda, who settled in Jerusalem in September 1881, wrote in July 1882 to Peretz Smolenskin in Vienna: "The thing we must do now is to become as strong as we can, to conquer the country, covertly, bit by bit ... We will not set up committees so that the Arabs will know what we are after, we shall act like silent spies, we shall buy, buy, buy."
   * In October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michael Pines, who had arrived in Palestine in 1878, wrote to Rashi Pin, in Vilna: "We have made it a rule not to say too much, except to those ... we trust ... the goal is to revive our nation on its land ... if only we succeed in increasing our numbers here until we are the majority [Emphasis in original] .... There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones."

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 10:13am:

.....Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote:

abu,

Oh,

You mean that Benny Morris?

"The New Historians are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have published histories of expulsions of Palestinians by Israel in 1948, expropriations of Palestinian property, and/or campaigns of ethnic cleansing by Israel in and around 1948. Much of their primary source material comes from declassified Israeli government papers. The movement includes scholars such as Benny Morris......"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians


Benny Morris has bee proven biased, inaccurate, a false witness, a falsifier of facts.....


".....I noticed a glaring contradiction between the English and Hebrew renditions of an October 1937 letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son. The English version had Ben-Gurion say: "We must expel Arabs and take their places"; the Hebrew edition represented him as saying precisely the opposite. An examination of the original document unequivocally settled the matter. It read: "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption proven throughout all our activity that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs."
To ascertain whether this was an isolated case of misrepresentation or a pervasive phenomenon, I undertook to carefully examine all the documentation used by Mr. Morris with regard to early Zionist attitudes toward the Arabs. In quick time, I was taken aback by the systematic falsification of evidence aimed at casting Zionism as "a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement... intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs." This ranged from the more "innocent" act of reading into documents what was not there, to tendentious truncation of source material in a way that distorted its original meaning, to rewriting of original texts to say what they did not mean, as he did with Ben-Gurion's aforementioned letter. ....."
http://www.think-israel.org/karsh.fightover1948.html




Try again, abu.

The TRUTH will out.

Benny Morris is an Israeli historian, plenty of other Israeli historians have begun telling the truth also, some of them often get firebombed in their homes for doing that, by their fellow Jews... wait only Muslims do that, don't they??

The quote of Ben-Gurion as Morris relayed it is much more in line with Ben-Gurion's views. He was a proponent of 'transfer policy', so it's quite obvious he'd be more likely saying we must expel them, that saying there's no need to.

For example, this little gem of a speech:

The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan: one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.

1937, accepting a British proposal for partition of Palestine which created a potential Jewish majority state, as quoted in New Outlook (April 1977)

Not only was he intent on taking all of Palestine for Jews, but Transjordan was on the horizon as well.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 10:41am:

Benny Morris is an Israeli historian, plenty of other Israeli historians have begun telling the truth also, some of them often get firebombed in their homes for doing that, by their fellow Jews... wait only Muslims do that, don't they?? The quote of Ben-Gurion as Morris relayed it is much more in line with Ben-Gurion's views. He was a proponent of 'transfer policy', so it's quite obvious he'd be more likely saying we must expel them, that saying there's no need to. For example, this little gem of a speech: The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan: one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them. 1937, accepting a British proposal for partition of Palestine which created a potential Jewish majority state, as quoted in New Outlook (April 1977) Not only was he intent on taking all of Palestine for Jews, but Transjordan was on the horizon as well.

'Transjordan'?, 'Transjordan'?

Oh, you mean Transjordan, the land of Transjordan which is east of the river Jordan?

You mean that land east of the river Jordan, THAT WAS SET ASIDE BY WORLD POWERS AFTER WWI, FOR A PALESTINIAN STATE ?

That Transjordan?

Aka, Edom.





Idumea = = Edom = = Jordan = = 'Palestinians'

"Bible verses you like"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214199336/75#75

Quote:

THAT WAS SET ASIDE BY WORLD POWERS AFTER WWI, FOR A PALESTINIAN STATE ?

Firstly, it has nothing to do with the fact Ben Gurion wanted to enact transfer policy from Transjordan as well. Which clearly shows he did NOT believe in merely living amongst the Arabs.

Secondly, The myth of Transjordan being "The Arab state" for Palestinians is just a load of Zionist garbage which has been clearly refuted and proved to be fallacy several times by me here. Unless you're a bit like Grendel and can't admit when the facts have overcome your argument?

Transjordan was merely lumped in with the Mandate of Palestine for 1 year, and only officially, it was never actually governed as part of the Mandate of Palestine, it was governed seperately. Also nowhere can you find any document, map, plan that suggests the Jews were to get all the land West of the Jordan (i.e Palestine) which the Arabs should be 'transferred' West of the Jordan into Transjordan. This was merely a Zionist desire, as has been noted in Ben Gurion's and others' writings.

All partition plans either included a small Jewish homeland contained within an Arab Palestinian state (West of the Jordan) or, two states roughly equal in size.

Quote:

It's quite ironic that most of the supporters of Zionism here are also anti-immigration...

Perhaps it's time for you to give your definition of Zionism, seeing as you throw the term around so freely. Is anyone who supports Israel's right to exist a Zionist?

Zionism is National Socialist ideology of the Jewish people. It is an extreme form of Jewish nationalism, believing the Jewish race (not religion) should have a state purely for their race. It is a racist ideology.

A Zionist supporter is anyone who supports the existence of a state based on Zionism, yes.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 4:11am:

Zionism is National Socialist ideology of the Jewish people. It is an extreme form of Jewish nationalism, believing the Jewish race (not religion) should have a state purely for their race. It is a racist ideology. A Zionist supporter is anyone who supports the existence of a state based on Zionism, yes.

Racist, like the Japanese determining who should live in Japan, is racist?

Racist, like the Fijians determining who should live in, and govern Fiji, is racist?




And before you 'come at me' with,
"What about Aboriginal Australian's, doesn't Australia belong to them? And don't Aboriginal's have a right to determine who comes to Australia? And shouldn't you Anglo's leave?"


Yes abu, we are all 'racists', to some degree.

Only some racists, are clearly much more rabid than others.

If you would like to be exposed to some rabid racism, read this news report about how black muslims are racially abused in Saudi Arabia.....



April 21, 2007
How a British jihadi saw the light
Ed Hussain, once a proponent of radical Islam in London, tells how his time as a teacher in Saudi Arabia led him to turn against extremism
.......A non-Saudi black student I had met at the British Council accompanied me. “Last week a woman gave birth here,” he said, pointing to a ramshackle cardboard shanty. Disturbed, I now realised that the materials I had seen those women carrying were not always for sale but for shelter.
I had never expected to see such naked poverty in Saudi Arabia.
At that moment it dawned on me that Britain, my home, had given refuge to thousands of black Africans from Somalia and Sudan: I had seen them in their droves in Whitechapel. They prayed, had their own mosques, were free and were given government housing.
Many Muslims enjoyed a better lifestyle in non-Muslim Britain than they did in Muslim Saudi Arabia. At that moment I longed to be home again.
All my talk of ummah seemed so juvenile now. It was only in the comfort of Britain that Islamists could come out with such radical utopian slogans as one government, one ever expanding country, for one Muslim nation. The racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal.
.......Racism was an integral part of Saudi society. My students often used the word “black person” to describe black people. Even dark-skinned Arabs were considered inferior to their lighter-skinned cousins. I was living in the world’s most avowedly Muslim country, yet I found it anything but. I was appalled by the imposition of Wahhabism in the public realm, something I had implicitly sought as an Islamist.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article1685726.ece



The racism of [a minority] Australians pales into insignificance, when you discover the discriminatory, and exploitative racism which is being practised today, by Allah's finest.

Why do muslims practice such discrimination???

Because Allah tells them, that they are empowered to discriminate.

The Koran is contradictory, but empowering to the worst in the Arab psyche.




"Ye [muslims] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.110


"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.021


"......Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment,""
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.447


"In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/001.qmt.html#001.001

So anyone who support's Israel's right to exist is a zionist?

Yadda,

That post contradicts most of your other posts. You've posted that Muslims stick together to the exclusion of others, now you've posted an article showing that Saudi Arabia doesn't subscribe and instead discriminates against Muslims based on their ethnicity. You can't have it both ways. Either Saudi Arabia follow Shari'ah law, or they don't, which is it?

freediver,

Anyone who supports the existence of the Zionist entity, would be a supporter of Zionism... Are you having trouble grasping the difference between a Zionist and a supporter of Zionism? A Zionist is actively engaged in carrying out the Zionist objectives of transferring the Arabs out of Palestine and settling it as a Jewish-only state (This includes many American Christians, not just Jews). A Zionist supporter on the other hand are people who defend and protect the Zionists and try to justify their actions to the world.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 10:03pm:

Yadda, That post contradicts most of your other posts. You've posted that Muslims stick together to the exclusion of others, now you've posted an article showing that Saudi Arabia doesn't subscribe and instead discriminates against Muslims based on their ethnicity. You can't have it both ways. Either Saudi Arabia follow Shari'ah law, or they don't, which is it? freediver, Anyone who supports the existence of the Zionist entity, would be a supporter of Zionism... Are you having trouble grasping the difference between a Zionist and a supporter of Zionism? A Zionist is actively engaged in carrying out the Zionist objectives of transferring the Arabs out of Palestine and settling it as a Jewish-only state (This includes many American Christians, not just Jews). A Zionist supporter on the other hand are people who defend and protect the Zionists and try to justify their actions to the world.

Well, I do support Israel's right to exist. Do your worst, bearded son of Muhhamed.

Anyway Freediver, care to comment on the original post? I take it you're a supporter of Zionism, perhaps not the most active one, but still a supporter nonetheless. Would you advise Muslims in the Diaspora to emulate the methodology of Zionists in their host countries? Or do you find their methodologies to be detestable and an insult and hostile act towards the 'host country'?

You're entitled to your opinion soren. However please don't falsify my lineage.

Anyway care to comment on the original post? How would you feel about Muslims in the Diaspora emulating the methodologies of Zionism? After all it was quite successful and you seem to support it and think it's a great way to achieve one's aims.. no?

Quote:

Anyone who supports the existence of the Zionist entity, would be a supporter of Zionism... Are you having trouble grasping the difference between a Zionist and a supporter of Zionism

?

No, I'm trying to figure out whether 'zionist entity' is your way of referring to Israel in a way that makes anyone who supports Israel's right to exist a zionist. That is why I keep asking you whether you think anyone who supports Israel's right to exist a zionist. I'm not sure why you can't just answer the question. Judging by your attempt to tar many members of this forum with that brush it certainly seems that way.


Quote:

Anyway Freediver, care to comment on the original post?

Sure, but I'm still trying to get past the first sentence. Hence the repeated and for some reason unanswered requests for clarification.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 10:09pm:

You're entitled to your opinion soren. However please don't falsify my lineage. Anyway care to comment on the original post? How would you feel about Muslims in the Diaspora emulating the methodologies of Zionism? After all it was quite successful and you seem to support it and think it's a great way to achieve one's aims.. no?

Wherever mohammedans were at home 2000 years ago, I support their rightful return to all such places. Sign me up for moral and material support.

Freediver,

Yes the Zionist entity is otherwise known as Israel.

I really don't see why it's so hard to understand, nor why the ever-so-precise definitions are so crucial to you responding to the question...

A Zionist is someone using their body, wealth, political position etc. to bring the goals of Zionism into existence, those of Arab transfer and Jewish usurpation of the emptied land.

A Zionist supporter is anyone who agrees with and supports Zionists in these aims.

soren,

Why does it have to be specifically 2000 years? 2000 years ago, my ancestors were somewhere in Germany, probably... Should I have a right of return there? To turn it into an Islamic state?

The Jews were merely one group of people who happened to inhabit Palestinee during history. Read your Bible a little more often and you'll see this.

As mentioned to you before, Muslims had come to Australia prior to the European invasion, therefore shouldn't we have a right to form a Zionist like ideology to return here? And use all the means and measures quoted above, that your beloved Zionism pioneered.

Can you just answer whether you think Zionism is actually a good way for an immigrating people to a land to deal with their 'hosts'???

Or do you not want to so publicly expose your hypocrisy and bigotry?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 30^th, 2009 at 4:31am:

soren, Why does it have to be specifically 2000 years? 2000 years ago, my ancestors were somewhere in Germany, probably... Should I have a right of return there? To turn it into an Islamic state? The Jews were merely one group of people who happened to inhabit Palestinee during history. Read your Bible a little more often and you'll see this.

And all the other people have died out or disappeared. Except the jews.


Quote:

As mentioned to you before, Muslims had come to Australia prior to the European invasion, therefore shouldn't we have a right to form a Zionist like ideology to return here? And use all the means and measures quoted above, that your beloved Zionism pioneered. Can you just answer whether you think Zionism is actually a good way for an immigrating people to a land to deal with their 'hosts'??? Or do you not want to so publicly expose your hypocrisy and bigotry?

This is the stupidest of analogies. Did the muslims leave any mark in Australia? And your connection to germany has no muslim significance.

When the Arabs are kicked out of Araby, get back to me and I'll be on your side. Until then, the jews are  entitled to Judea.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 10:03pm:

Yadda, That post contradicts most of your other posts. You've posted that Muslims stick together to the exclusion of others, now you've posted an article showing that Saudi Arabia doesn't subscribe and instead discriminates against Muslims based on their ethnicity. You can't have it both ways. Either Saudi Arabia follow Shari'ah law, or they don't, which is it?

abu,

I believe that your admission above, pretty much proves, what almost every 'educated' 'Kuffar' knows already.
......and what we are trying to convince good ppl in the muslim community of.

That ISLAM is a failed and corrupt system of 'laws'.

A system of laws, which ISLAM's [own] adherents are so confused about, even within their own communities, that they are always compelled to express their divergent 'beliefs' in violent ways, to assert that [only] their own 'sanctity' is immutable.

ISLAM is a system of laws which produces continual division, and strife, and violence,
.....until one faction is able to subdue all other divergent factions.







Yadda said,


Quote:

"......[ISLAM is a] system of laws, which ISLAM's [own] adherents are so confused about, even within their own communities, that they are always compelled to express their divergent 'beliefs' in violent ways,"

EXAMPLE - IN PEACEFUL AUSTRALIA


06 May 2007
Mosque violence Tensions boil over after move to replace imam
Paul Maley
A BITTER factional feud within Canberra's Islamic community has erupted into violence with a leading member being punched repeatedly in the grounds of the mosque at Yarralumla.
Secretary of the ACT Islamic Society Kurt Kennedy said he was set upon shortly after announcing the appointment of a new imam to replace the controversial Mohammed Swaiti.
He was assaulted while waiting on the mosque grounds for a lift home after announcing Mr Swaiti had been dumped and naming the new imam as Yahya Atay.
......"When our secretary Kurt Kennedy announced ... the new imam will deliver the [Friday speech] before prayer, two people jumped up and grabbed Kurt and pushed him around," he told the Canberra Sunday Times.
"They pushed him and wanted to throw him out of the mosque.
"Then the imam [Mr Swaiti] started screaming in the middle of the mosque, 'I am the imam of this mosque! I am the imam who will service you people! I will never step down! No one can force me to step down! I will be here until the day I die!"'
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=582042&category=General


Muslims.

Lovely ppl.

Always a wonderful 'example' to their own community, and us believers, in a better way.
/sarc off

Quote:

I really don't see why it's so hard to understand, nor why the ever-so-precise definitions are so crucial to you responding to the question...

Because you are deliberately confusing two issues. You are trying to equate people who support Israel's right to exist with zionists. It is hardly an 'ever so precise definition'. I just want to know whether you think anyone who supports Israel's right to exist is a zionist. The only reason it is an issue is because you have been so reluctant to clarify, because it would make it harder for you to confuse the two issues.

Quote:

You are trying to equate people who support Israel's right to exist with zionists.

Nowhere have  I stated such people were Zionists. I said they'd be "supporters of Zionism". Since Israel only existed through transferring Arabs out of their villages and replacing them with Jews, then supporting the right of Israel to exist means supporting Zionism, does it not?

So you don't think everyone who supports Israel's right to exist is a zionist? I just want to get a straightforward answer on this Abu, that's all. I don't like getting through five pages of debate only to find someone had only pretended to answer an important question and led everyone up the garden path.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 11:08pm:

Quote: You are trying to equate people who support Israel's right to exist with zionists. Nowhere have  I stated such people were Zionists. I said they'd be "supporters of Zionism". Since Israel only existed through transferring Arabs out of their villages and replacing them with Jews, then supporting the right of Israel to exist means supporting Zionism, does it not?

When did this 'transferring' start? Is there an Israeli law that says that Arabs can be arbitrarily 'transferred' from their villages?

Or do you mean 'transfer' as when you sell your land you are 'transferred' from it elsewhere? Or when you start a war and your leaders suggest you 'transfer' out for a couple of weeks while they finish off the joos but the plan backfires and the pesky joos refuse to be finished off? Or when the joos occupied gaza and the west bank, which had been illegally held by Egypt and Jordan?

Quote:

Since Israel only existed through transferring Arabs out of their villages and replacing them with Jews, then supporting the right of Israel to exist means supporting Zionism, does it not?

No here's the thing Lawrence of Charadia, Jews immigrated legally (in most cases) to the BMP. Nobody transferred anything anywhere.  It's like me saying that the Lebs in Lakemba expelled Australians from the suburb. Its a big load o crapola.

But unlike us soft jobbies who put up with Islamic crap pretty much non-stop since they got here, the Arabs decided that they'd kill the Jews as their favouriate team sport. And the UN eventually tried to stop the fighting by splitting the people into their separate parts, nobody had to 'leave' anywhere. It was the brains trust Arabs that got on the radio, declared war on the Jews, and told the Arabs to leave the Jewish areas to come back later after they'd won.

But they didnt win - they lost. Because just about everything Arabs and Muslims do, is a clusterf****, including this attempt. Cant build anything just destroy things.

So stop giving us all this crap about Arabs being put on railway cars and sent off to concentration camps like it was the Third Reich Buchenwald all over again. It wasnt. If Arabs could conquer their own idiotic hatred of jews, they'd have peace, their own state, and not be hated by pretty much everyone the world over for the insanity.

Also, the word 'Zionist' is just a coded word for the hatred of Jews.

They use Zionist to mean Jew, to try and sound more politically correct. What they want to say, but dont have the brass ones to say..is Jew Jew Jew.

I was googling 'palestinians always make the wrong decision' a propos their unerring instinct for error and came across this.


The Palestinians undermine their right to exist!

They never failed to chose the wrong leaders, make the wrong decisions and go with the wrong partners.

Their current situation is their own doing: in '48 they listened to Syria, Jordan and Egypt and ran away, leaving Israel in order to make way for the "victorious Arab Armies"! WRONG CHOICE! They were tempted by their racism and hatred agains Jews, and by their Arab "friends". They became refugees, hated and despised by everybody.

Encouraged by Syria, they tried to kill King Abdallah of Jordan (after he hosted them!). WRONG CHOICE! The King killed several tens of thousands and kicked them out to Lebanon.

There they raped the Christians andcarried terror attacks against Israel. WRONG DECISION! Israel kiced them out of Lebanon and Hezbollah (Shiites) became the force while the Sunnis (palestinians) became the minority.

They breached the Madrid Peace Accord after thinking that they were strong enough to destroy Israel - WRONG DECISION! They got kicked in the balls and their lives became more miserable!

They rejected the Camp David Peace Accord and started another Itdifadah. WRONG CHOICE! They lost ANY credibility they had with the Israeli public and they got their ass kicked relentlessly ever since.

They joined Saddams invading forces in Kuwait, raping, murdering and stealing from their former Kuwaiti employers! Talk about snakes biting the hand that feeds them. WRONG CHOICE! Americans kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and Kuwaitis kicked the palestinians out of Kuwait and back to their hellhole. The entire Arab world saw how treacerous, disloyal and barbaric palestinians really are - even with their own "brothers"!

They elected Hamas in Gaza. WRONG CHOICE! Hamas murdered several thousand Gazans just because they were not its suporters, and ever since made the lives of the citizens a living hell by forcing fanatical Islam laws onto everybody (or else!). In addition they lost everything and then some when Israel decided that 8 years of 7000 Qassams and incessant terror attacks were enough reason to kick them in the balls - although some of the world clearly would have liked to see more dead Jews in the process.

Interesting what choice they will make now, when Hamas is weak, and after witnessing what kind of life Hamas can bring to them. I bet that AGAIN they will make the WRONG CHOICE!

Come on now Calanen, making sense, and using a non-Islamic concocted version of events, you must know, that is Zionism at it's worst. ;)

Soren, that precis of events would be a good script for a "Carry On" movie remake, unfortunately their comedy of errors has become a tragedy, so the only film they want to make is, "Carry On Hating".

Calanen,


Quote:

So stop giving us all this crap about Arabs being put on railway cars and sent off to concentration camps like it was the Third Reich Buchenwald all over again.

Even Israeli historians have documented it, using mostly declassified Israeli documents. You can continue believing the mythical Zionist account if you like, but even many Israelis themselves have begun admitting the horrible truth about their past.

Guess it takes some longer than others to catch on.

soren,


Quote:

Encouraged by Syria, they tried to kill King Abdallah of Jordan (after he hosted them!). WRONG CHOICE! The King killed several tens of thousands and kicked them out to Lebanon.

If you actually had any knowledge of the conflict (beyond what you conveniently glean from Zionist propaganda sites) you'd know the Palestinians didn't try to kill Abdullah they DID kill him, and it was his grandson Hussein who killed tens of thousands about 20 years later... nevermind though... the rest of the article is truthful I'm sure  ;D

Quote:

Even Israeli historians have documented it, using mostly declassified Israeli documents. You can continue believing the mythical Zionist account if you like, but even many Israelis themselves have begun admitting the horrible truth about their past.

What did they document?


Quote:

If you actually had any knowledge of the conflict (beyond what you conveniently glean from Zionist propaganda sites) you'd know the Palestinians didn't try to kill Abdullah they DID kill him, and it was his grandson Hussein who killed tens of thousands about 20 years later... nevermind though... the rest of the article is truthful I'm sure

So it was the right choice?

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 5:51am:

you'd know the Palestinians didn't try to kill Abdullah they DID kill him

They DID kill him? Oh, well, that changes EVERYTHING then, doesn't it?

What is a Zionist, other than a supporter of Zionism?

It's no wonder the Palestinians and their Muslim supporters take the whole protocols of Zion thing so seriously. Everything the Palestinians and their leaders have done has worked in the favour of the Israelis. Except the dead ones of course, but the Palestinians don't seem to have much of a kill rate. It would be much easier on their egos to believe that the Jews were behind the scenes pulling everone's strings than to acknowledge what they brought upon themselves.

[quote]They DID kill him? Oh, well, that changes EVERYTHING then, doesn't it?[/quote]

What it changes is the facade that your article had any credibility as a truthful and accurate source. Whilst you guys can't even get basic historical facts right, how can anyone have any faith in the idea you'd be telling the truth?

Gee Abu, how untypical, to totally ignore the whole thrust of an argument, and divert to a triviality.

If the facts are SOOOO wrong, debunk them.
Care to try?

As far as I could see, it seemed a pretty funny, but fair assessment of the palestinian malaise.

mozza, if people don't even know basic historical facts surrounding the conflict, it calls into question the authenticity and accuracy of their argument as a whole.

The fact the writer of the article got it so wrong, indicates it's not well researched. The fact soren didn't even realise it, indicates he doesn't know a lot about the history of the conflict, but instead just cuts and pastes stuff without even knowing what he's talking about. Since I have studied the conflict carefully, simple factual errors like that stand out a mile. then again, I am interested in the entire conflict as a historical phenomena, others are just interested in peddling propaganda to prop up shabby points of view.

I have wasted plenty of time debunking the false arguments and propaganda of the Zionist supporters here, I'm honestly growing tired. A sad example was that of the typical Zionist myth that the British Mandate of Palestine was actually Jordan and Palestine together, and that the Arabs got their half (Jordan) and the Jews got their half (Israel). I have spent far too many posts pointing out the complete lies of such a claim, yet Grendel, Calanen et al still have the gaul to claim it's true (Calanen is a lot quieter about it now, knowing he just looks foolish, Grendel has no shame though). Why would I waste any more time on such stubborn fools? They can't accept the facts, even if clearly shown to them... why beat my head against a brick wall? So I can end up as mentally challenged as they are?

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 9:04pm:

[quote]They DID kill him? Oh, well, that changes EVERYTHING then, doesn't it?

What it changes is the facade that your article had any credibility as a truthful and accurate source. Whilst you guys can't even get basic historical facts right, how can anyone have any faith in the idea you'd be telling the truth?
[/quote]


'ello, 'ello, 'ello, why was he assassinated?  Because there were roumors that jordan and lebanon might want to make a - gasp* - peace deal with israel. The bloody cheek of them.

So the unerring instict for the WRONG DECISION kicks in and both the king of jordan and th PM of lebanon are assassinated by a palestinian.

And where was he assassinated? Why, in a mosque. And not any old dusty prayer tent either. In the holy mosque built upon the stone whence Mahomet acended to heaven. Nice.


Ten conspirators were accused of plotting the assassination and were brought to trial in Amman. The prosecution named Colonel Abdullah Tell, ex-Military Governor of Jerusalem, and Dr. Musa Abdullah Husseini as the chief plotters. The Jordanian prosecutor asserted that Col. Tell had given instructions that the killer, made to act alone, be slain at once thereafter to shield the instigators of the crime. Tell and Husseini fled to protection in Egypt and four local co-conspirators were sentenced to death in Amman. Jerusalem sources added that Col. Tell had been in close contact with the former "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem", Amin al-Husseini, and his adherents in Arab Palestine.

Amin al-Husseini? Where have we heard that name before? Ah yes, "In 1937, wanted by the British, he fled Palestine and took refuge successively in Lebanon, Iraq, Italy and finally Nazi Germany where he met Adolf Hitler in 1941." Ah, that Grand Mufti, eh? Santly man, that mufti. And waddaya know? The king's assassin was Mustafa Shukri Ashu, "a Palestinian from the Husseini clan." Yes, the mufti's clan.
The palestinians, with the clan and family as the only organisational glue, are more like an arab Camorra or Cosa Nostra than a people.  

hahah...whats that, Soren getting his facts wrong...YET AGAIN.

Not playing with a full deck of cards that Soren...time and time again he makes rather basic factual errors.

And like a typical fool, he keeps coming back for more. :D:D:D

If he had half a brain, he might even be dangerous. :D

Lestat wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 9:45pm:

hahah...whats that, Soren getting his facts wrong...YET AGAIN. Not playing with a full deck of cards that Soren...time and time again he makes rather basic factual errors. And like a typical fool, he keeps coming back for more. :D:D:D If he had half a brain, he might even be dangerous. :D

Ululate away, simple soul.

The summary of Palestinian errors is now proven to be completely and utterly demolished. They did indeed assaasinate the king of jordan who  might have been trying to make peace with Israel or not. What I can see now is that the palestinians, in fact, have always made the right decision and now they are living happy and contended lives, envied the world over. I can now see how the success or failure of that assasssination has made all the difference.

soren,

Be careful. If you associate living a happy and contented life with making the right decisions, then you would need to admit that after 9/11, the US was not happy, because they'd made the wrong decisions that led to that event. Likewise Australia must've made bad decisions that led to Bali... according to your version of 'karma'.

Or is it only the Palestinians whose choices decide how happy or sad they'll be?

Btw, King Abdullah was assasinated in Masjid al-Aqsa, not Qubat as-Sakhrah (Dome of the rock) as you inaccurately claimed above. Never mind though, it matches the rest of your factless post. Guess it's just a result of you just cut-pasting it wholesale from wikipedia or palestinefacts  ;D

Does the matter of mixing up the names, change the basic premise that it was another very poor choice, which used violence to try and further a political goal, which remains as distant as ever?

I don't see how, it still remains an example of another dumb choice, helping to keep them in the poo.

mozzaok wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 7:28am:

Does the matter of mixing up the names, change the basic premise that it was another very poor choice, which used violence to try and further a political goal, which remains as distant as ever? I don't see how, it still remains an example of another dumb choice, helping to keep them in the poo.

I would of thought that killing 25000 Palestinians in one month, and then awarding the man (King Hussein) responsible a nobel peace price..would constitute a 'dumb choice'.

But hey, thats just me.

Sorens article is a nonsence piece full of many factual errors which have already been highlighted. I suggest if you really want to learn about Black September (In 1974) and the events surrounding this dark month, then go and do some research from somewhere a little more credibile.

Of course, alternatively, you can always take Soren's incorrect version of events, and remain in ignorance.

the choice is yours...

Soren wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 10:20pm:

Lestat wrote on Feb 3rd, 2009 at 9:45pm: hahah...whats that, Soren getting his facts wrong...YET AGAIN. Not playing with a full deck of cards that Soren...time and time again he makes rather basic factual errors. And like a typical fool, he keeps coming back for more. :D:D:D If he had half a brain, he might even be dangerous. :D Ululate away, simple soul. The summary of Palestinian errors is now proven to be completely and utterly demolished. They did indeed assaasinate the king of jordan who  might have been trying to make peace with Israel or not. What I can see now is that the palestinians, in fact, have always made the right decision and now they are living happy and contended lives, envied the world over. I can now see how the success or failure of that assasssination has made all the difference.

haha...Soren's lies get exposed...so what does he do, he lies some more to cover his original lies.

Any other 'facts' you'd like to share with us Soren. I need a laugh. :D

Lestat wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 8:39am:

Any other 'facts' you'd like to share with us Soren. I need a laugh. :D

Yes, here's one:

As a good muslim man you have shaved your pubes and pee sitting down, like a girl.

Now that's funny.

Soren wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 11:37am:

Lestat wrote on Feb 4th, 2009 at 8:39am: Any other 'facts' you'd like to share with us Soren. I need a laugh. :D Yes, here's one: As a good muslim man you have shaved your pubes and pee sitting down, like a girl. Now that's funny.

HAHAHAHA. is that meant to offend me?

Lestat wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 11:48am:

Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2009 at 11:37am: Lestat wrote on Feb 4th, 2009 at 8:39am: Any other 'facts' you'd like to share with us Soren. I need a laugh. :D Yes, here's one: As a good muslim man you have shaved your pubes and pee sitting down, like a girl. Now that's funny. HAHAHAHA. is that meant to offend me?

No. Why, was your post meant to offend me?

Now we can all laugh, that's all.

Soren wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 12:21pm:

Lestat wrote on Feb 4th, 2009 at 11:48am: Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2009 at 11:37am: Lestat wrote on Feb 4th, 2009 at 8:39am: Any other 'facts' you'd like to share with us Soren. I need a laugh. :D Yes, here's one: As a good muslim man you have shaved your pubes and pee sitting down, like a girl. Now that's funny. HAHAHAHA. is that meant to offend me? No. Why, was your post meant to offend me? Now we can all laugh, that's all.

Not at all, just stating a fact.

You continously post articles and opinions full of errrors, quite often you don't even know the simple facts, and time and time again you are made to look foolish when your rather 'basic' errors are highlighted.

You clearly don't know what your talking about. King Hussien's involvment in Black September is general knowledge amongst anyone who has a basic understanding of the history of the area/conflict. The fact that you didn't even get this basic component right speaks volumes.

Does the truth offend  you?

What's this about peeing sitting down?

Lestat wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 1:17pm:

You continously post articles and opinions full of errrors, quite often you don't even know the simple facts, and time and time again you are made to look foolish when your rather 'basic' errors are highlighted. You clearly don't know what your talking about. King Hussien's involvment in Black September is general knowledge amongst anyone who has a basic understanding of the history of the area/conflict. The fact that you didn't even get this basic component right speaks volumes. Does the truth offend  you?

Lizzie, we were talking about King Abdullah's assassination by a Palo in 1951 before you came in, eyes rolling. Black September was 20 years later.

Details are just that in this case: whatever details you add, they simply support the point. The truth of Palo barbarity and treacherousneess is well made either way. No mitigating details, whether the king was killed or not, whether the palos were expelled from Jordan because of the assasination or beause they became insufferable, whetheer they assasinated the king of Jordan in one mosque or another.

And yes, it is an offensive truth, offensive like a bad smell, offensive like a grinning, staring idiot cutting his own veins to make you feel bad.

You may be seated, girl.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 6:15pm:

What's this about peeing sitting down?

Lizzie can explain.

Where is that old thread about bidets? I want to know what they did in the days before they had actual bidets.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 6:15pm:

What's this about peeing sitting down?

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/9790

One of the other things I like is that before you pray, you have to wash your c*ck.

So the muslim cabbies at the airport go into the mens room, and put their dicks in the sink. So next time you are about to wash your hands in the mens room at Sydney Airport, remember that many stinky sweaty muslim cab drivers that find deodorant haram have washed their c*cks in that sink.

Islam - the pinnacle of civilized behaviour.

Now I know why I am afraid of flying...

What do they dry it on?

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 9:28pm:

What do they dry it on?

Oh noooo.... they just wack it againt the door handle a coupla times to shake the water orf! Now we can't get out!!!  Aaaarghhhh!!





Why not go by train?








(this has been a city rail announcement)

Calanen wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 8:44pm:

One of the other things I like is that before you pray, you have to wash your c*ck. So the muslim cabbies at the airport go into the mens room, and put their dicks in the sink. So next time you are about to wash your hands in the mens room at Sydney Airport, remember that many stinky sweaty muslim cab drivers that find deodorant haram have washed their c*cks in that sink. Islam - the pinnacle of civilized behaviour.

hahaha...what a load of crap. Not sure where you plucked this bit of fantasy from...but please, keep it coming. Your showing everyone how ignorant you really are.

And please, try to keep it clean...no one wants to know about your fantasies.

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 9:28pm:

What do they dry it on?

If you honestly believe this then you are dumber then I first thought.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Quote:

hahaha...what a load of crap. Not sure where you plucked this bit of fantasy from...but please, keep it coming. Your showing everyone how ignorant you really are.

Nope. 100% truth. I drove taxis for 5 years. Ask the Christian Arabs, they will tell you. The Muslims are a bit defensive about it.

That's why the airports have been more willing to put in these prayer rooms with washing facilities, because they were tired of finding these guys with their yoo-hoos or their feet in the mens room sinks.

Ah freediver, now I see the motive behind the 'preparation for prayer' thread  ;D

This, like most of Calanen's information, is nothing but bovine faeces. Wudhu (ablutions in Islam) consist of washing the hands, mouth, nose, face, arms, head, ears and feet. I'm afraid there's no phallic scrubbing there Calanen, sorry to shatter your fantasies.

Just out of curiousity freediver, why is it that over 4 pages after I first asked my question, I still don't have a straight answer?? You constantly accuse me of avoiding answering questions, yet I've never lengthened any thread out for 4 pages like this. Can someone (who supports Zionism), which would include you I think fd, please answer my question about whether or not you think Zionism and it's methodology for taking over other people's countries should be emulated by Muslims in Australia.

Enough of the hypocrisy and just answer!

It is a loaded question Abu. I don't mean loaded in the sense you use the term, where you refuse to answer because you think the answer might be reveal a truth you want to hide, or because the topic is 'controversial'. Rather, you imply in your question that many here are zionists, without asking. When I ask you to clarify who you think are zionists, you refuse to do so. Although, you did just accuse me. Substituting 'supporter of zionism' for zionist does not somehow unload the question. I support Israel's right to exist. This does not make me a Zionist. It does not make me a supporter of Zionism, and more than Hamas support Zionism by giving Israel a trigger to kill more people with.

Who else do you think is a zionist, or a 'supporter of zionism'?

Nice deflection, now just answer the question please.

But you specifically directed the question at zionists. I am not a zionist. Why would I answer the question? It's like if I asked what Nazi members of OzPolitic thought about gassing Jews. Would I expect you to answer on behalf of Nazis? It is a stupid question.

Ok, by popular demand, question is now open to all human beings.

First state your view of Zionism and status as a Zionist supporter, then your view on Muslims adopting tthe same methodologies to take over Australia, and how Aussies/Australia should react to them if they did try that.

More strawman arguments. You must have hay bales on back order.

Calanen wrote on Feb 11^th, 2009 at 10:08am:

More strawman arguments. You must have hay bales on back order.

Whats wrong Calanen...can't you answer his question.

Afraid your hypocricy might be exposed...again!

I think Zionism (from the little I know of it), Nazism and Islamism are all corrupt ideologies. Anyone who shares these ideologies should be prevented from immigrating to Australia. I think most of methods through which the current political boundaries were established are wrong and should be put to an end. Anyone who complains about historical warmongering, but calls for more war to reset the geopolitical boundaries to some arbitrary time in hisotry is a hypocrit.

I am not sure just how relevant Zionism is, in the world of today.
It's goal of lobbying for the creation of a jewish state, has been achieved, with the birth of Israel, originally by an international mandate, and reinforced by military victories over those who sought to destroy it.

I know that in the early days, there were violent factions as part of it, like the Stern Gang, which helped to display the effectiveness of terrorism, and that is something I deplore, and condemn them for employing, just as I do against islamist terror organisations.

As for what you seem to think about Zionism, that it is some immensely powerful back room lobbyist organisation, influencing negative outcomes for humanity, throughout the world?

I honestly do not know.

I don't know how much of that notion is paranoia, and how much is fact, but I tend to think there is more of the former, than the latter, when it comes to Islamic interpretations of it.

As for Islam attempting to turn Australia into a muslim caliphate?

Islam does not need to find a homeland, if merely having a state, which shares your religious, cultural, and political beliefs, is the criteria which Zionism set itself, then Islam has many existing lands to choose from, that are already there.

So if Islam sought to impose itself as a theocratic dictatorship in Australia, I would side with the elements of the free world, that would challenge it's right to attempt such an act of aggression.

I will also challenge any push by muslims, for the acceptance of Islamic teachings in Australia, that are incompatible with our democratic, western civilisation.
If muslims want to live here, then they must abide by our laws, and customs to the degree that they must choose to either accept that, and modify what they request we allow them to indulge in, or leave.

The understanding of Islam that I have garnered from different, and varied sources, shows it to hold many beliefs, and practices, which I consider immoral, and unethical.

So on that basis, it should not be allowed to indulge any of these immoral aspects, whilst in Australia.

I think the key issue is the ambiguity around what apsects of our values they should be expected to adopt. Customs is a dangerous word to use in that context, as it could mean they have to eat meat pies. I think values is a more appropriate term. They should be expected to support democracy and personal freedom. This should go beyond merely agreeing to put up with it, as Islam suggests. As the acid-in-the-face case demonstrates, fundamental human rights can be destroyed by a minute fraction of a society, if the rest of the society does not actively oppose it. So Abu describing the acid-in-the-face attack as just another crime, rather than a politically motivated, outright attack on human rights, actually supports the attack on human rights. It denies that there is an attack on human rights, or it denies that the right of women to chosoe what to wear is important. Once you deny the importance of human rights, it becomes almost inevitable that those rights will be taken away. Islam claims to support freedom of religion, but it aslo calls for apostates to be killed, for non-Muslims to be given second class status etc. It causes it's followers to neglect any rights of a woman to wear what she chooses, unless it comes to her right to wear the appropriate Islamic dress. It gives basic human rights technical protection, but completely destroys the ability of people to protect those rights in practice. It's like a dictator claiming he was democratically elected after he killed any popular candidates who attempted to challenge him on an equal footing. Or in the Islamic case, claiming that islam allows for democracy, when only Islamic candidates can run and they only have a mandate to impose sharia law.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 10^th, 2009 at 9:54pm:

Ok, by popular demand, question is now open to all human beings. First state your view of Zionism and status as a Zionist supporter, then your view on Muslims adopting tthe same methodologies to take over Australia, and how Aussies/Australia should react to them if they did try that.

I support the jews who want to have Israel, inncluding JEWdea as their country and want to live in peace. I would not support them as strongly if they wanted to expand or if they had claimed any other part of the world because it is only to the area of Israel that they have a strong and undisputed connection, a far stronger claim than to any other land of their diaspora.

The muslims and Arabs have no similar claim to any part of the world except Araby. They have only the claims of a fallen empire to Spain and any part of the Ottoman Empire or any other past empire under muslim rule.

If the Muslims could have a claim to, say, Spain, then England has every right to claim back India, Pakistan, Australia, NZ, US, Canada and the rest of the British Empire. But of course that would be just as ridiculous as the Muslim claims on 'Andalus', let alone Australia.

So the attempetd parallel between Israel and Australia is ludicrous. The correct parallel would be Israel and Aboriginal land rights. But that's not in Muslim's favour so you would not think it, let alone propose it.  Do you support land rights?


Is this clear enough?

If at the time of Federation, we decided to say, kill all the Irish, and the UK when giving us our independence, said, hey, the Irish can have Tasmania so you stop killing them you psycho bastards, and you can have the rest of the country to live.

And then all the other states, and hell other countries all joined together and said, no we should kill all the Irish AND have Tasmania. If then, we told all our brothers in Tasmania, 'Leave the land now, you can then come back after we've killed the Irish in Tasmania', oh no, the Irish kicked our asses, AND, the English are gone now so we cant blame then, and our allies lost too.  That would be really fair that we started a war of racist extermination, and lost, and that meant we lost territory. How very unfair.

That's really unfair that England wouldnt let us kill the Irish and gave em a place to live.  And we only left Tasmania because we thought we'd be able to go Nazi genocidal on the Irish, but it didnt work out.

I think we should rocket them every day and demand Tasmania back, and have an insane desire to kill them.

But they did steal Tasmania. Evil Zionists.

So unless you support that, then you cant support Islam.

Or something like that, I'm not as good as straw man analogies as Abu. Far less practice.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 10^th, 2009 at 9:54pm:

Ok, by popular demand, question is now open to all human beings. First state your view of Zionism and status as a Zionist supporter, then your view on Muslims adopting tthe same methodologies to take over Australia, and how Aussies/Australia should react to them if they did try that.

Gone oddly quiet despite a couple of straightforward answers.
Or because of.

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2009 at 1:35pm:

I think the key issue is the ambiguity around what apsects of our values they should be expected to adopt. Customs is a dangerous word to use in that context, as it could mean they have to eat meat pies. I think values is a more appropriate term. They should be expected to support democracy and personal freedom. This should go beyond merely agreeing to put up with it, as Islam suggests. As the acid-in-the-face case demonstrates, fundamental human rights can be destroyed by a minute fraction of a society, if the rest of the society does not actively oppose it. So Abu describing the acid-in-the-face attack as just another crime, rather than a politically motivated, outright attack on human rights, actually supports the attack on human rights. It denies that there is an attack on human rights, or it denies that the right of women to chosoe what to wear is important. Once you deny the importance of human rights, it becomes almost inevitable that those rights will be taken away. Islam claims to support freedom of religion, but it aslo calls for apostates to be killed, for non-Muslims to be given second class status etc. It causes it's followers to neglect any rights of a woman to wear what she chooses, unless it comes to her right to wear the appropriate Islamic dress. It gives basic human rights technical protection, but completely destroys the ability of people to protect those rights in practice. It's like a dictator claiming he was democratically elected after he killed any popular candidates who attempted to challenge him on an equal footing. Or in the Islamic case, claiming that islam allows for democracy, when only Islamic candidates can run and they only have a mandate to impose sharia law.

FD,

Wow, that is good!

Very succinct.

I'm still trying to work out what the hell Calanen is talking about?

Only joking, I get his analogy, crude as it is.

Unfortunately we find that our muslim friends rarely are able to engage in any type of flowing debate.

It seems like they can give the stock replies to obvious issues, with the regurgitation of the spurious justifications that we expect they have received from their Imams, but anything not expected, is met with silence.

It is a shame that they seem too afraid to even hold a "personal" opinion, and were they ever to do so, almost unthinkable that they would have the temerity to voice it, without running it by the Islamist propaganda inspectors first

Instead we get diverted onto stories about the achievements of a man who tied feathers to his pyjamas and jumped off a cliff, breaking his back, and are told how great an example of Islamic achievement was this early attempt at flight..

---

That's a jewish gull - the colours are israeli, the nose, er, beak unmistakable. Can't fool us, rampaging islamophobe.

Quote:

Unfortunately we find that our muslim friends rarely are able to engage in any type of flowing debate.

His analogy was less than pathetic.

If Anglos had been in Australia for more than 100 years at the time it might have been even remotely relevant. Palestinians have been in Palestine for at least 1200 years (some of them perhaps 1000-2000 more), the Dome of the rock has stood in Jerusalem for longer than both Jewish temples combined. The Caliphate ruled Palestine for longer than any Jewish kingdom ruled over it. And we shed much less blood than they did taking it, both times they've done it now.

When Australians have been here for about another millenium, come back and show me your analogy, might be worth examining.

It's quite amusing to watch you all tip toeing around this one. Knowing full well that supporting the principals of the "Zionist project" would not be too comfy for you, if someone else decided to do it your country. And on the flip side knowing you gotta not back away from your support for it, cos you've all staked too much of your credibility on it already.

freediver,


Quote:

Anyone who complains about historical warmongering, but calls for more war to reset the geopolitical boundaries to some arbitrary time in hisotry is a hypocrit.

"some arbitrary time in history" doesn't really do justice to the image of millions of Palestinians still languishing in refugee camps on the borders of their former home...

Not just the damage that's been done and which is not resolved, ie. people still living in tents, cos their homes are occupied, but daily more and more Palestinians are being made homeless, and more and more Jews are leaving quite good homes in comfortable nations around the world to come and take the Palestinians homes...

soren,


Quote:

I would not support them as strongly if they wanted to expand

Hello?? they expanded from day one of the UN giving them half of a country in which they owned only about 2% of the land. And till this very day, that we write this thread, they continue to expand. If you turn down your Zionist controlled television and listen very hard, you might just hear the sound of a bulldozer demolishing yet another Palestinian home, to make way for the ever increasing amount of Jewish immigrants.

Quote:

It's quite amusing to watch you all tip toeing around this one. Knowing full well that supporting the principals of the "Zionist project" would not be too comfy for you, if someone else decided to do it your country. And on the flip side knowing you gotta not back away from your support for it, cos you've all staked too much of your credibility on it already.

There is no tiptoeing Abu. All there is, is you trying to equate zionism with believing Israel has a right to exist, and everyone else trying to make sense of your convoluted justifications for this. We have seen your ludicrous demands for 'all' the zionists here to answer questions for you, but so far I am the only one you would willingly label a zionist. People didn't take you seriously because they are not zionists, that's all.


Quote:

"some arbitrary time in history" doesn't really do justice to the image of millions of Palestinians still languishing in refugee camps on the borders of their former home...

You left out the rockets bit. And the 'great victories' they are having over Israel.


Quote:

Hello?? they expanded from day one of the UN giving them half of a country in which they owned only about 2% of the land. And till this very day, that we write this thread, they continue to expand.

Actually, you often claim that a Caliphate would only expand in self defense. Obviously the real Caliphate never lived up to this and it turned into a warmongering empire. Strangely enough, Israel comes far closer than the caliphate ever managed. It only expanded into a tiny fraction of the land occupied by the people who attacked it and were given a humiliating thrashing. Perhaps that's why you refuse to give any details on the thread about Israel and Islamic concepts on spoils of war. You are complaining about a standard that is far higher than the one you have yourself.