[voodoo]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Let me test my skills - you're not in the freaking mood for going to the coffeehouse(cafe) after you started to -------( I can't make out the rest.....)

was that close ?

Hehe well, you got some words right, but the word kaffihús is used here to infer that this is a discussion that would best belong with some liberals at a café over a latte, if you know what I mean.

So what I was telling vW was that I couldn't be bothered to discuss this because he's just a bleeding-heart liberal and I had just had dinner and this kind of meaningless conversation wouldn't help my mood or my digestion.

I also told vW that he should go to some better university than the one that has been feeding him all this liberal manure.



@von Wrangell

That would be an accurate translation, no?

V

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Hehe well, you got some words right, but the word kaffihús is used here to infer that this is a discussion that would best belong with some liberals at a café over a latte, if you know what I mean.

So what I was telling vW was that I couldn't be bothered to discuss this because he's just a bleeding-heart liberal and I had just had dinner and this kind of meaningless conversation wouldn't help my mood or my digestion.

I also told vW that he should go to some better university than the one that has been feeding him all this liberal manure.



@von Wrangell

That would be an accurate translation, no?

V

Why do some people go on about a University feeding people with opinions? If the person is bright enough (as vW seems to be), one would hope that they will be critical thinkers and be able to come up with their own opinion regardless of those of anybody else. If they aren't, perhaps they'll be persuadable by some third party such as a University, but they probably wouldn't be able to defend themselves very well since the opinion would not be theirs, and logically speaking probably wouldn't come here anyway.

None of us are brainwashed, we think for ourselves and come up with our own opinions. That's why I'm here.


edit: although many of us are extremely partisan, and perhaps a little too brainwashed by some politicians

[Kerrigan]

Universities make a big impression on you, since you spend your intellectually formative years there. As an Edinburgh lad, I quickly lost my religion and became rather left leaning on most things. But then after a year or so, as my circles of friends changed and my professors/lecturers began to take on a smaller role in my studies, I found myself developing rather conservative beliefs based on much of the classical reading I'd done, as well as on the Enlightenment philosophy courses that I had taken.

Basically though, universities exist to impress upon students the values of the State (in my case, the British State). How you react to this varies greatly. Some people go along with it and become more liberal as it suits their tastes, others intially accept it and then reject it, like I have, and still others remain conservative throughout, never seriously challenging their own beliefs.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Hehe well, you got some words right, but the word kaffihús is used here to infer that this is a discussion that would best belong with some liberals at a café over a latte, if you know what I mean.

So what I was telling vW was that I couldn't be bothered to discuss this because he's just a bleeding-heart liberal and I had just had dinner and this kind of meaningless conversation wouldn't help my mood or my digestion.

I also told vW that he should go to some better university than the one that has been feeding him all this liberal manure.



@von Wrangell

That would be an accurate translation, no?

V

Absolutely!

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Absolutely!

Since you're in a chirpy mood maybe you won't conveniently ignore my reply to you again. Please answer my response to you.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And that is a call for ethnic cleansing in what way?

What are you really proposing be done about 'White Jews' that you have not thus far openly said should be done?

There isn't such a thing as "a white Arab". Arabs are Arabs, doesn't matter what religion they hold. White people (perhaps you prefer the term Caucasians) are from Europe.

Europeans or White People™ don't even come from Europe! We all came from Africa and have diversified due to different climates we live in. I tell you what, let's move a group of Arabs to Germany for over 1000 years. Let's see how 'Arab' they look afterwards......if there is such a thing as looking Arab.

And where is this place White People™ start from? Do they start in Turkey? Or Lebanon? Or Greece? Or Macedonia? Or Syria? Where on the map is the point where people stop being White™ and start being something else? You'll find there isn't one. As the climate and environment changes so do people.

As for your question, what lie? Jews originated from the ME -> they are originally Arabs. Arabs aren't white. A white Jew is therefor from a convert because you don't change from Arab to a Caucasian in the time we are talking about here.

Get a clue. Arabs are from Arabia. The people north of Arabia you are calling Arabs (they are not, they are mostly converts and differ widely) have been of different tribal and ethnic groups long before the Arab invasions and migrations. They come in all different shapes, sizes and colors......as do Arabs themselves. The term 'Jew' refered originally to a person of Judea/Yahud who worshipped the god Yahu/YHWH. It is not a racial connotation. Yahudim were always of different ethnic backgrounds.

And then the Romans called them Palestinians as an insult. The original Palestinians (Peleset)came from near Greece and were nothing more than a small troublesome seafaring tribe.

Now that you have your history lesson will you please give a follow up opinion on your White Jew Theory™ and what is your solution to the presence of these White Jews™ you have a problem with who live in Israel?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Since you're in a chirpy mood maybe you won't conveniently ignore my reply to you again. Please answer my response to you.

Sorry, didn't ignore you just forgot to reply to you as I was at work with a lot to do. I'll make this short as I'm back at work. Might elaborate on it later today.

What are you really proposing be done about 'White Jews' that you have not thus far openly said should be done?

1. Stop importing them into Israel/Palestine.
2. Nothing should be done to those who have lived in Palestine/Israel for two generations or more.
3. Those who recently were imported into the area should be treated as foreigners legally (similar to European laws about immigrants).
4. And most importantly a state should be set up that makes them equals to the Palestinians and Arab Jews.

Radical isn't it?

Europeans or White People™ don't even come from Europe! We all came from Africa and have diversified due to different climates we live in. I tell you what, let's move a group of Arabs to Germany for over 1000 years. Let's see how 'Arab' they look afterwards......if there is such a thing as looking Arab.

And where is this place White People™ start from? Do they start in Turkey? Or Lebanon? Or Greece? Or Macedonia? Or Syria? Where on the map is the point where people stop being White™ and start being something else? You'll find there isn't one. As the climate and environment changes so do people.

You'll find that people do not change their physical and genomic set up in just 1000 years. Look at white South Africans. They are still obviously European in looks and genetic set-up.

Get a clue. Arabs are from Arabia. The people north of Arabia you are calling Arabs (they are not, they are mostly converts and differ widely) have been of different tribal and ethnic groups long before the Arab invasions and migrations. They come in all different shapes, sizes and colors......as do Arabs themselves. The term 'Jew' refered originally to a person of Judea/Yahud who worshipped the god Yahu/YHWH. It is not a racial connotation. Yahudim were always of different ethnic backgrounds.

But never originally from Europe.

And then the Romans called them Palestinians as an insult. The original Palestinians (Peleset)came from near Greece and were nothing more than a small troublesome seafaring tribe.

Got some geneolocial facts for that claim?

Now that you have your history lesson will you please give a follow up opinion on your White Jew Theory™ and what is your solution to the presence of these White Jews™ you have a problem with who live in Israel?

Perhaps you should read up on how Jews came to control of the area they now claim as having always been there. That's something guys like you often forget.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Perhaps you should read up on how Jews came to control of the area they now claim as having always been there. That's something guys like you often forget.

Oh, like they may have been nomads?

I guess we should feel like you when a bunch of Arabs buys a local car dealership or something?

Your points seem VERY RACIST.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

1. Stop importing them into Israel/Palestine.

OK then. Let's stop Muslims from migrating to the rest of the world then. Fair? And for those Muslims who have already migrated would it be fair to make them pay a jizya?

2. Nothing should be done to those who have lived in Palestine/Israel for two generations or more.
3. Those who recently were imported into the area should be treated as foreigners legally (similar to European laws about immigrants).

And it's up to Israel if they want to give foreigners long or permanent stay.

4. And most importantly a state should be set up that makes them equals to the Palestinians and Arab Jews.

It already is. Pretty hard for Israel to underscore it when all the attention is on those who want to wipe Israel off the map.

You'll find that people do not change their physical and genomic set up in just 1000 years.

Wrong.

Look at white South Africans. They are still obviously European in looks and genetic set-up.

They haven't been there for a 1000 years. What's more the difference between them and indigenous South Africans is far greater than between Jews, Arabs and these so called White People™ of Europe you mention. South African lifestyles are also pretty different now for the mutations to occur in even a thousand years. Roofs, homes, air conditioning, clothing. These are things that effect the appearance of a human that the indigenous population didn't have, at least not the same type.

But never originally from Europe.

Nobody originates from Europe.

Got some geneolocial facts for that claim?

Geneolocial? What is that? It helps to study some history and science before opening your mouth. If Allah can't help you I guess it's up to me to enlighten you......

The Peleset.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peleset

"The connection between Mycenean culture and Philistine culture was made clearer by finds at the excavation of Ashdod, Ekron, Ashkelon, and more recently Tell es-Safi (probably Gath), four of the five Philistine cities in Canaan."

"The theory that the Sea Peoples included Greek-speaking tribes has been developed even further to postulate that the Philistines originated in either western Anatolia or the Greek peninsula."

"There is some limited evidence in favor of the assumption that the Philistines did originally speak some Indo-European language."

"The Philistines are spoken of in the Book of Amos as originating in Caphtor: "saith the LORD: Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?" (Amos 9:7). Later, in the 7th century BC, Jeremiah makes the same association with Caphtor. Scholars variously identify the land of Caphtor with Cyprus and Crete and other locations in the eastern Mediterranean."

Not Arab. The Arabs came to the area so late they aren't even mentioned in Jewish texts.

Perhaps you should read up on how Jews came to control of the area they now claim as having always been there. That's something guys like you often forget.

So forget about your poor Muslims and Arabs. Let's run to the defense of the Canaanites, who by the way worshipped a god called Yahu/YHWH in their pantheon of gods. His followers were called Yahudim. They also worshipped El in their pantheon. In Arabic that is 'ilah' or if we want 'The God' Allah.

BTW, according to the mythology of the Torah and Koran Allah did give the land of Canaan to the Israelites. Are you going against Allah's will?

[Kerrigan]

Not to counter your points Obi Wan since obviously I agree, but aren't you confusing Philistine with Palestine?

Anyways yes the idea that its okay for Muslims to move to Europe (hundreds of thousands each year actually) and wrong for 'White Jews' to move to Israel is racist.

And also I don't see what is so unjust about the history of Israel. The original Zionist settlers purchased the land from Ottomans who had no qualms with their mission. Palestine was just a derelict province in Victorian days, the land was unoccupied, and the Turkish rulers had no issue with Eastern European Jews living there (many of whom lived under Ottoman rule in East Europe anyways).

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Not to counter your points Obi Wan since obviously I agree, but aren't you confusing Philistine with Palestine?

Study Kerrigan study. That is a matter of language. Peleset, Falastu, Falastina, Palestina, Palestine, Philistine etc are the same thing just as Jew, Yahudim, Yahudiya, Yaudeyas are the same. Just as Muhammedan, Mohammedan, Moosleema, Musliman, Muselman, Musilmano, Momeen, Momin, Muslim and Moslem are the same thing.

Right now I await Von Wrangell who runs away and waits for a post to blow over before returning. I want his opinion now and if he admits to a lack of prior knowledge of the region's history all the better for him.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Study Kerrigan study. That is a matter of language.

I hate to nitpick but there is a rather important difference between the two words. The Philistines are mentioned in the Bible a lot, and of course the history you gave is correct.

But the Philistines were not Arabs or even Semites. The name Palestine through general usage has come to mean the area of present day Palestine, but there is no connection to the people. (Although Obi Wan, we're both underscoring the point that the Palestinian identity is not inextricably connected to those tracts of land where they live today)

The reason I point this out isn't to nitpick or prove you wrong. Instead, it's to demonstrate that the concept of a "Palestinian" is basically an innovation of the 20th century.

In another post I cited some text from Bernard Lewis's book, where he points out that i) no state has ever been called Palestine
ii) the authorized version of the Old Testament names Palestine three times but the references were later removed because they were mistranslations of Philistine (Peleshet--the Land of the Philistines; not Palestine but Philistia)
iii)several provinces were called Palestine in the Roman Empire but they disappeared shortly after being absorbed into the Arab Empire.
iv)The constitution or the formation of Palestine was a lasting innovation of the British Mandate.

I point all of this out because there simply never was an indiginous group of people who called themselves Palestine, from whom Jews 'stole' their land. The reality is that nobody identified themselves with the name Palestine, and land was mostly unoccupied, and Jews began purchasing it from the Ottomans precisly because it was empty.

[greenG4]

wikipedia has a good synopsis of the history of the term "palestine" and "palestinian".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian

[Kerrigan]

Green, everyone knows that you shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source, especially not for something as politically charged as this subject.

For goodness's sake look at the first thing that article says:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Green, everyone knows that you shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source, Especially not for something as politically charged as this subject.

For goodness's sake look at the first thing that article says:

No matter WHAT source you go to, the validity will somehow be indispute by one side or another. ESPECIALLY with this subject.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I point all of this out because there simply never was an indiginous group of people who called themselves Palestine, from whom Jews 'stole' their land. The reality is that nobody identified themselves with the name Palestine, and land was mostly unoccupied, and Jews began purchasing it from the Ottomans precisly because it was empty.

What a load of crap, widely repeated in zionazi circles. Once and for all:

It doesn't matter if there were people who called themselves 'Palestinians' at any given time.
It doesn't matter if there ever was a 'Palestinian' nation.
That the land was unoccupied is an easily refuted lie.

What matters is that those people we refer to as 'Palestinians' (mostly muslims, but with sizeable Christian and Jewish minorities) are the Semites that inhabited the land for many, many centuries and since roughly one century are being driven out of it by Europeans. 

About the topic at hand: how can a state that is actively commiting one war crime after the other (blowing up bridges, power plants, civilian infrastructure in general - just to cite the latest and most evidents) be 'always right'?  How can the capture of an occupying soldier by irregulars be called 'terrorism' and the terrorising of innocent civilians 'justice'? What is your definition of genocide?

[Kerrigan]

It doesn't matter if there were people who called themselves 'Palestinians' at any given time.
It doesn't matter if there ever was a 'Palestinian' nation.
That the land was unoccupied is an easily refuted lie.

So nothing matters to you and you won't bother refuting my "lie"? Weakest argument ever.

Come back to the table when you have some valid points.

are being driven out of it by Europeans

What is it with you guys and racism? So because European Jews BOUGHT land sold to them by Muslims, they still don't deserve to be there?

If I went around saying "Those damn Muslims have taken over London! They're squeezing out all the English! This is supposed to be a Pure White Christian city! Drive them out, they don't belong here!" I would be labelled an utter racist, which is what you sound like, and apparently what you are.

[evfish84]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Jews originated from the ME -> they are originally Arabs. Arabs aren't white. A white Jew is therefor from a convert because you don't change from Arab to a Caucasian in the time we are talking about here.

Actually, skin color can easily change in the course of two thousand years from a ME complexion to that of a European. This does not necessarily happen due to conversion and intermarriage, but also because of natural selection. When the Jews moved from post-Biblical Israel to the north, their darker skin color would be a huge environmental disadvantage. To increase calcium and phosphorus utility, they would need to adapt to have lighter skin (in order to make vitamin D efficiently in less sunlight).

It may seem unlikely for such a radical transformation to occur in so short a time, but fossil evidence from the United States has shown similar changes in shorter periods. For example, fossil evidence shows that when the Native Americans first crossed the land bridges from Siberia 11000 years ago, they were Caucasian. After less than 2000 years, with the land bridge no longer in existence and no more contact with "Europeans," molecular evidence showed that the Native Americans adapted the sunnier climates with darker skin.

Based on the genetic diseases that are prevalent only in Eastern European Jewish populations (such as Tay-Sachs) and are the result of inbreeding, there is more evidence for these "white Jews" not letting in converts or intermarrying with their Christian neighbors than otherwise.

[Kerrigan]

Is this what it's come to? One's property rights are undermined because of race? I thought it was the 21st century.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Von Wrangell always silent when he can't show humility. Can a he show humility to a kaffir who Allah has used to teach him a lesson?

Golda Meir "The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity."

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

In another post I cited some text from Bernard Lewis's book....

Why bother? Lewis is an Orientalist and as such offers only a very very narrow analysis of Middle Eastern history and politics.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Why bother? Lewis is an Orientalist and as such offers only a very very narrow analysis of Middle Eastern history and politics.

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

Orientalism...
2 : scholarship or learning in Asian subjects or languages

So the preeminent scholar in Middle Eastern history and politics has, uh, a very very narrow ability to analyze his speciality?

Would you prefer I just posted a link to a shoddy wikipedia "article"?

And you wonder why your side of the debate isn't taken seriously.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So the preeminent scholar in Middle Eastern history and politics has, uh, a very very narrow ability to analyze his speciality?

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster
Orientalism...
2 : scholarship or learning in Asian subjects or languages

It's a term that also refers to scholars who approach ME history and politics from a prejudiced position. They view Islam as unchanging and thereby the only unit of analysis for the region. All Lewis's writing about Muslims begins and ends with the fact that Muslims are Muslims. So yes, Lewis offers only a very narrow analysis of the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

And you wonder why your side of the debate isn't taken seriously.

My side? It's pretty obvious you don't really know what you're talking about, but whatever.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

My side? It's pretty obvious you don't really know what you're talking about, but whatever.

Regarding middle-eastern history, your signature should read

"Arabs have a simple message to most Israelis and Zionists: You were Palestinians long before we used the name. And before you the Palestinians were Greek! Please wake us up from our delusional coma!"

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

It's a term that also refers to scholars who approach ME history and politics from a prejudiced position. They view Islam as unchanging and thereby the only unit of analysis for the region. All Lewis's writing about Muslims begins and ends with the fact that Muslims are Muslims. So yes, Lewis offers only a very narrow analysis of the Middle East.

That's a rather blatant generalization of his many decades of research into Middle Eastern culture.

Apparently what is so 'controversial' and 'predjudiced' about some of his writings is that he demonstrates how religion causes social conflicts, and therefore any understanding of the Middle East is incomplete without a thorough understanding of the historical aspects of the dominant religion.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

That's a rather blatant generalization of his many decades of research into Middle Eastern culture.

Apparently what is so 'controversial' and 'predjudiced' about some of his writings is that he demonstrates how religion causes social conflicts, and therefore any understanding of the Middle East is incomplete without a thorough understanding of the historical aspects of the dominant religion.

It's not a generalisation. But to be clear I'm not trying to suggest religion should not be used at all to analyse the ME but it's explanatory capacity is very limited and one dimensional - the link you posted exemplifies this - social conflict cannot be totally attributed to religion.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

It's not a generalisation. But to be clear I'm not trying to suggest religion should not be used at all to analyse the ME but it's explanatory capacity is very limited and one dimensional - the link you posted exemplifies this - social conflict cannot be totally attributed to religion.

Every form of government the middle east has experienced for 5000 years has been a theocracy and they have only ever known war since. Israel is the first democracy and wouldn't be there is they didn't want Arabs to live peacefully all around them. It's time for the rest of the middle east to wake up from holy tablets, holy scrolls and holy books.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Have you conducted a census, or is this just your good ol' gut feeling talking?

Considering that Hamas won by a clear majority, it's obvious there's some truth to the statement.

[von Wrangell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5154838.stm

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5154838.stm

A people unafraid to critise their own. Muslims have a lot to learn from that and the Enlightenment.

[Cody Dawg]

Israel, obviously, has had enough.

I see that as of today, they are going to kick some @ss - Lebanon.

Wouldn't be surprised if Syria is next.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Wouldn't be surprised if Syria is next.

Here's hoping Syrian militants can arrange for that as well. Include Jordanian and Egyptian in it while we are at it.

Then these nations will get the war Israel so desperately wants.

[Taliesin]

Wouldn't that be the needed pretext to also attack Iran's nuclear facilities? It's well known that Iran financially and ideologically supports the Hezbollah and to a smaller part also the Hamas, so Iran is also responsible for these acts of war, and Israel can fly over to Iran and repeat what it did in 1981 in Iraq, can't it?

Taliesin

[von Wrangell]

As for the OT.

The blockade follows wide-ranging Israeli air raids on southern Lebanon, which killed at least 35 civilians.

Among the dead were two whole families - one of 10 people and one of seven - killed in the homes near the town of Nabatiyeh, officials said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5175160.stm

BBC "forgets" to mention that the youngest victim there was 4 days old.

Will you continue to say they are right even after we have the next Qana Massacre? I'm pretty sure you will.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Here's hoping Syrian militants can arrange for that as well. Include Jordanian and Egyptian in it while we are at it.

Then these nations will get the war so desperately want against Israel.

Fixinated™

[Cody Dawg]

Israel will wipe them out.

The United States will help if necessary, I'm sure of it.

What's interesting is how all the liberal lefties - who are Jewish - will do an about face about the U.S. being in the Middle East and they will instead support the U.S. being there because we can help protect Israel.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Israel will wipe them out.

Are 4 day old infants included in that "them"?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

What's interesting is how all the liberal lefties - who are Jewish - will do an about face about the U.S. being in the Middle East and they will instead support the U.S. being there because we can help protect Israel.

The "liberal lefties" are all Jewish? Really?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Israel will wipe them out.

The United States will help if necessary, I'm sure of it.

It's a good thing you really do not advocate war.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I really do not advocate war, despite my strong belief system, for anyone or any country because it hurts innocent people.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Are 4 day old infants included in that "them"?

Since they're usuallly used as shields, probably.

[Troll]

I don't understand this obsession with the right wing saying that "Palestinian" is a modern term. Obi Wan, can you explain to me why it has any relevance to what is happening today?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Since they're usuallly used as shields, probably.

That's right, the millions of children in Gaza are "usually used as shields". That's why we never see photos of them playing or going to school or doing anything but walking in front of the millions of Palestinian terrorists!

You have a nasty habit of making gross generalisations about people of a particular race. Can't remember the technical term for that, but I don't think it's a nice word.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Since they're usuallly used as shields, probably.

Would the same then apply for Westerners and Israelis?

That is those "damn human shields" in the WTC etc etc?

Thought not.

[Cody Dawg]

MacNStein

Since they're usuallly used as shields, probably.

Not to mention bomb carriers.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Not to mention bomb carriers.

4 day olds!?!?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Troll

That's right, the millions of children in Gaza are "usually used as shields". That's why we never see photos of them playing or going to school or doing anything but walking in front of the millions of Palestinian terrorists!

You have a nasty habit of making gross generalisations about people of a particular race. Can't remember the technical term for that, but I don't think it's a nice word.

It's called being a realist?

Hiding in schools, hiding weapons in schools, burying weapons on school property, hiding in houses where there are lots of children, etc.. Seems to be a pattern. Unless, you're simply too blind/stupid to see it?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Would the same then apply for Westerners and Israelis?

That is those "damn human shields" in the WTC etc etc?

Thought not.

Worst. Analogy. Evar.

[Cody Dawg]

They are now trying to transfer the Israeli soldiers to Iran as prisoners of war.



If they do then Iran is fair game - and the United States will get involved.

I remember a few months ago that I predicted that Israel was going to launch a major offensive. I predicted March/April. I'm off by two months, but I was right.

Iran had better watch their Ps & Qs.

I think that this is going to be a major war.

Might even rearrange the geography a bit.

[von Wrangell]

If that "happens" we know who has been behind these kidnappings. And that won't be Hamas nor Iran. Israelis will need to look closer at home to find those guilty.

But it seems you will now get the war you have been dreaming about Cody. Congrats.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

It's called being a realist?

No, it's called being a racist.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Hiding in schools, hiding weapons in schools, burying weapons on school property, hiding in houses where there are lots of children, etc.. Seems to be a pattern. Unless, you're simply too blind/stupid to see it?

None of those are things that CHILDREN do so how you think this helps your argument that children are a fair target, I don't know!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

If they do then Iran is fair game - and the United States will get involved.

The US wouldn't be able to hold down Iraq and take on Iran at the same time. So, if your prediction is correct, look forward to a draft.