CNN: Reporter tweets that cheering Israelis are scum!

[Honu]

YUP ahhahaha

but who did they take it from
or at least the canaanites since they were the first recorded people ? so the canaanites ancestors were the folks you talk about ?

I think that is the point about conquering

not lecturing ya just sharing info to all
ironic with the southern border crap going on and some of the IDIOTS saying we stole it from Mexico ? OK we paid but to the point who are the mexicans ?
well the aztec and mayans were there way before what we know as current spaniard mexicans and the spanish came in enslaved murdered tortured the mayans and aztecs and what we think of as Mexicans are more often Spaniards from Spain who conquered Central and Southern America yet we want to say its there land ? yet they stole it and make what the bad stuff some did to the American Indians look like halloween giving out candy !

one thing I learned living in Central America around folks who were not Spaniard the rest of Central America does not like the Spaniard ones to much


I think the whole idea we know since 2000 BC is conquering is kinda what man does best some living from 6000-2000 was not as much conquering but about 1500 BC things started changing for sure with more population

hmmmm kinda ironic wild animals mark territory etc... and defend it by fighting sometimes till death if the other does not run away

Clearly and obviously the entire area is correctly Pangea and rightfully belongs to the tribes of Iguanodon, Megalosaurus and Plesiosaurus.

[jerrysimons]

I will clarify that no state has a "right to exist," just as no person has a "right to live."



Ba-Badump-Bat-Bit-Burrrrrrrrr!

Seinfeld is that you? I just fell out of my chair laughing.

Israel is an apartheid state propped up by our tax dollars.

This is a popular claim, one that is so far off-base I can only consider statement of such as pure ignorance or a vicious libel.


Netanyahu has his hand glued to the stove over there, and only needs to turn up the heat when he needs a political victory or when he sees things getting a little too organized in the concentration camps. The 3 squatters hitchhiking to their illegal settlement had very little to do with the current state of affairs, other than providing a simple excuse.

Settlements in the west bank are in-fact legal, while these settlements are probably an unwise policy IMO, the territory was legally captured in a defensive war. Moreover, It is highly offensive to minimize these teens deaths, but I guessed they deserved it, being Jews and all, right?

It's imperative for Israel that they not only keep the Palestinians broke and desperate (they do a good job of that) but also disorganized. In the past, helicopter or drone strikes on cars carrying their political leaders have been sufficient, but since the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation on 23 April, it became absolutely critical that they move into the ghetto to smash things and kill noncombatants.

The block-aid on Gaza, which has international support, Egypt included, exists to keep Iran from freely shipping weapons to Hamas so so they can wage genocide. Numerous ships have been intercepted. Israel ships food, fuel and supplies into the Gaza daily. It is clear where Hamas's priorities lie since they resources they do have a all channeled into destroying Israel, which is the reason they don't have more resources in the first place.

Ghetto? Hamas holds Gazans captive by their fanatical pursuits. Israel has in the past, and would again, allow free passage of Gazans If they didn't have to worry about them walking across their boards with bombs strapped to themselves.

It's kind of like how they destroy Beirut every 10 years or so because they're sad Tel Aviv never became the regional economic center... (but that's another story, let's not get sidetracked)

Pure slander.

The "Human Shield" argument no longer holds water- and it never did. After herding the Palestinians into Gaza, it became one of the most densely populated areas in the region. Obviously if you're going to do naval gunnery on it, you're going to produce serious collateral damage.

BS and you know it. From Hamas's own mouth you can find that they deliberately use human shields. Examples include: storing weapons in schools, mosques, and civilian homes, ordering people not to evacuate areas from which the IDF has warned of pending strike, fighting in the midst of crowds, fighting from schools, and mosques, ordering people to flock to roof tops of structures the IDF has targeted, transportation of weapons and fighters in ambulances. They do it all because 1) they know it will deter IDF from firing in most cases (not an effective tactic if IDF really wanted to kill "non-combatants") and 2) if non-combatants are killed in the process they are considered martyrs (whether they wanted to be or not) and Israel will be blamed by international media.

Precision guided munitions and ground incursions are not carpet bombing. If Israel wanted to level Gaza they could, and at much less risk and expense.


In the age of social media, and with the economic challenges we face here at home, I don't think Israel will be able to behave in this way for very long and still collect their welfare check once a month. On a big timeline, I personally don't see any long-term-viability for a Zionist state in that area.

Unfortunately I agree. I think jihadis will eventually succeed in eliminating the little Satan. Especially as Barack Hussein lets Iran run unchecked.

Obviously you misread my post, because there is... literally no vitriol whatsoever in anything I said.

Perhaps take a step back and try to view things objectively as Steyr suggested.

Thanks, I'll do that. You just sail on objectively citing your own Palestinian version of history. A combination of exaggerations, hypocrisy, double-standards, and flat-out lies zealously mixed with hatred of Jews, existential suffering and veiled Islamo-fascist theocracy.

Let's explore your example further:



Let's imagine that I did show up where you live, to rob and steal...

Even if I had the backing of the governor of an adjoining state, unlimited funds, free use of that state's SWAT MRAP and armory, IT assets, a signed letter from the mayor of a town in that other state... would you be wrong to "deprive me of my right to live?"

No, you would not, because morally no one can grant another a "right to steal."

If you lived on a family farm in Jaffa-sberg, Florida growing Oranges, and I showed up, took forcible possession of the farm, and then paid your family migrant-picker-wages to work their own land... ummm... what used to be their land before I stole it fair and square... would the "KalashniKEV Groves Orange Plantation" have a "right to exist?"

Obviously not, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if grandpa organized the resistance after I tossed you in the labor barracks and locked the door until 30 before dawn.

The land under the Turks was a wasteland, many of the owned portions dilapidated under absentee landloards who legally sold their land. Kibbutzim settlers also pioneered land making deserts flourish. This whole narrative of Jewish immigrants showing up during the mandate and forcing Arabs off their land simply does not exist.
BUT if everything happened as you described, then sure, I can see where you would contest Israel's "right to exist". As that is exactly what you are contesting. Does the Palestinian "resistance" surprise me? No, but it is not simply a "lets take back of the land stolen from us". They are drawing from a much broader ideological and theocratic consciousness.


Nothing that's happening over there is in any way surprising, and none of it has anything to do with religion.

(Except in so much as religion is a tool to move weak minds to action)

Did you read the charter? This is incredibly reductionistic and naive.

I think it is possible you are too close to the subject to be objective. So let me attempt to rephrase what I think Kev was going for.

Do you think an Aryan state has a right to exist? And I don't mean nazi Germany and I don't mean trains, ghettos and death camps, but a state that exists as a homeland for "aryans" where all other are considered second class?

And just so we don't get off on the wrong foot, I'm fully aware that the notion of "aryans" was hijacked from Tibetan beliefs, distorted by a Russian anti semetic mystic named Madame Blavastky and further distorted by Edmund Kiss.

To further clarify myself so there is no misunderstanding, I'm also aware that "race" (including notions of racial Jews) is a completely arbitrary definition because no matter how one attempts to define any race, there are always several genetic exceptions where people who satisfy the definition criteria do not have genetic commonality with the rest of the group and others do do NOT satisfy the definition criteria do have genetic commonality with the defined group.

But if we put that absurdity aside for a moment (because hard as they looked the Germans never found blond haired and blue eyed "aryans" in Tibet), if we accept the typical racial notion of "aryan", and we accept for a moment that the concept of "race" itself is valid, do THEY have a fundamental right to exist, establish a nation / state and defend their racial purity at the expense of all others?

And if the above query is simply too intolerable to consider (I understand it can be hard to be objective about somethings that are simply too personal), if the chips fell the other way and the arabs defeated the new state of Israel, established the Arab Republic of Palestine and forced the Jews into refugee camps and ghettos, would that hypothetical "Arab Republic of Palestine" have a fundamental right to exist and defend itself for anyone who would challenge it?

Because I kind of think that is where Kev was going with the whole "nobody has a Fundamental right to exist" line of thought. Sadly, these things tend to be decided by force rather than by "rights" or "justice." Israel, much like the US, has certainly won the right to exist by force and a willingness to use force.

And just so I don't end up being "the anti semetic" guy again, you can rest assured that if Mexico started firing actual rockets into Los Angeles and the US retaliated, liberals in Los Angeles probably wouldn't be wringing their hands over the plight of the Mexican people who just got "smart bombed."

It is clear I have marginalized myself, in thoroughness perhaps I tried to say to much, since much has been ignored and I am now considered less than objective and too invested. Nevertheless I will reiterate one more time before calling it quits as it is clear we have reached an impasse. One in which I will attest to something happening a certain way and somebody will counter with the Palestinian version of history and we are talking past each other. I will say, however, that if one approaches this issue with a contrived even-handedness one's results will always be skewed.

With the exception of the bolded portions that do not bear analogy to Israel for reasons I have already addressed (and in fact are offensive, anti-Semitic assumptions that have been so often repeated you will probably be offend I said so. I appreciate you being careful, though, sometimes somethings are just embedded), I see no problem to an Aryan state as you described, so long as human rights were protected by legislation and practice. Something which you precluded in the question by adding the tidbits about second class citizens and defending racial purity at the expense of others. Nations are free to decide their own identity distinctions in my book so long as it doesn't violate humans rights and remains a free and pluralistic society.

Israel is not concerned with "racial purity" they are concerned with living in safety in their home land (where they have had a presence for thousands of years as either autonomous rulers or primary populous subjects of foreign conquering empires) free from the attempts of genocide and discrimination that has marked their collective historical experience living in other nations throughout the world. Add this component to the mix and your "Aryan" query sounds a little less ridiculous.

[SteyrAUG]

YUP ahhahaha

but who did they take it from
or at least the canaanites since they were the first recorded people ?

Pretty sure Homo Habilis predates even them. Of course the Stromatolites got there first.

[SteyrAUG]

It is clear I have marginalized myself, in thoroughness perhaps I tried to say to much, since much has been ignored and I am now considered less than objective and too invested. Nevertheless I will reiterate one more time before calling it quits as it is clear we have reached an impasse. One in which I will attest to something happening a certain way and somebody will counter with the Palestinian version of history and we are talking past each other. I will say, however, that if one approaches this issue with a contrived even-handedness one's results will always be skewed.

Never actually said that. I suggested it was a possibility and was prepared to be understanding if the scenarios were simply "too personal." Just to try and get us on the same page, if my loved ones were killed by mansion family type serial killers but one person actually did not take part and simply functioned as a lookout in the car, I probably couldn't be terribly objective about that person and his "lesser significance" status, I'd simply want him dead.

With the exception of the bolded portions that do not bear analogy to Israel for reasons I have already addressed (and in fact are offensive, anti-Semitic assumptions that have been so often repeated you will probably be offend I said so. I appreciate you being careful, though, sometimes somethings are just embedded), I see no problem to an Aryan state as you described, so long as human rights were protected by legislation and practice. Something which you precluded in the question by adding the tidbits about second class citizens and defending racial purity at the expense of others. Nations are free to decide their own identity distinctions in my book so long as it doesn't violate humans rights and remains a free and pluralistic society.

Again, so we don't get more sideways than we might be already. I wasn't drawing a direct analogy. I was taking the concept of a religious / race based state to a common extreme. If an "aryan" state were to exist in the modern world, my description is probably about what it would be like even if there were no trains, ghettos and death camps. That doesn't mean the description applies to the current state of Israel. I was just wondering if you'd defend such a state and to what extent, and you have answered the question without invoking a double standard.

Israel is not concerned with "racial purity" they are concerned with living in safety in their home land (where they have had a presence for thousands of years as either autonomous rulers or primary populous subjects of foreign conquering empires) free from the attempts of genocide and discrimination that has marked their collective historical experience living in other nations throughout the world. Add this component to the mix and your "Aryan" query sounds a little less ridiculous.

Again, I think you have accidentally confused my "hypothetical" religious / race based state with a criticism of Israel. It wasn't meant to be a direct parallel, but more of a "worst case" example to see if you'd still actually support the idea.

If we race directly to the bottom line, Israel exists because European Jews felt the need for a homeland / safe haven, which is hardly surprising considering their recent experience, and they established and secured such a state and have defended it ever since. And while I may have come criticisms of Israel, the way it conducts itself and things of that nature, they are much further down the list than my criticisms of the population of Gaza which are still being led by an actual terrorist organization (Hamas) and their actions in this matter.

I just don't want that understanding to get lost in any philosophical discussion, especially one that includes hypotheticals.

[jerrysimons]

Never actually said that. I suggested it was a possibility and was prepared to be understanding if the scenarios were simply "too personal." Just to try and get us on the same page, if my loved ones were killed by mansion family type serial killers but one person actually did not take part and simply functioned as a lookout in the car, I probably couldn't be terribly objective about that person and his "lesser significance" status, I'd simply want him dead.



Again, so we don't get more sideways than we might be already. I wasn't drawing a direct analogy. I was taking the concept of a religious / race based state to a common extreme. If an "aryan" state were to exist in the modern world, my description is probably about what it would be like even if there were no trains, ghettos and death camps. That doesn't mean the description applies to the current state of Israel. I was just wondering if you'd defend such a state and to what extent, and you have answered the question without invoking a double standard.



Again, I think you have accidentally confused my "hypothetical" religious / race based state with a criticism of Israel. It wasn't meant to be a direct parallel, but more of a "worst case" example to see if you'd still actually support the idea.

If we race directly to the bottom line, Israel exists because European Jews felt the need for a homeland / safe haven, which is hardly surprising considering their recent experience, and they established and secured such a state and have defended it ever since. And while I may have come criticisms of Israel, the way it conducts itself and things of that nature, they are much further down the list than my criticisms of the population of Gaza which are still being led by an actual terrorist organization (Hamas) and their actions in this matter.

I just don't want that understanding to get lost in any philosophical discussion, especially one that includes hypotheticals.

Thanks for your clarifications and continued carefulness. Sorry to misunderstand your hypothetical, I am glad to productively answer it.

[Honu]

sleestacks ? you know the crystals

Pretty sure Homo Habilis predates even them. Of course the Stromatolites got there first.

[Mjolnir]

As for our southern border we did conquer it but we conquered THE THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO which had seceded from Mexico proper.

Semantics?

Maybe. But it's the often overlooked aspect of that event.

[KalashniKEV]

Settlements in the west bank are in-fact legal...

That's not true, and there's really no way to spin it. The settlements are illegal under international law, and are pretty much universally condemned.

The block-aid on Gaza, which has international support, Egypt included, exists to keep Iran from freely shipping weapons to Hamas so so they can wage genocide.

The blockade is there to keep the Palestinians broke, desperate, and scrambling.

The assassinations of their political leaders are to keep them disorganized in living in chaos.

It is also, as you noted, helpful that they can never properly equip a standing army, which leaves them with only 1) Terror weapons like suicide vests and Wiley Coyote ACME rockets 2) Small stones on the ground.

Examples include: storing weapons in schools, mosques, and civilian homes...

I'd do all that and more if I were in their position.

Think about how hard it is to traffic weapons into the most heavily surveilled piece of terrain on Planet Earth...

I'm not trying to flex nuts, but if some settlers showed up in my AO and wanted to run that play it would be hammer time. Couldn't they just be happy with what they've already stolen, and live on their side of the wall they put up, with their $9.9M PER DAY Welfare Check?

Especially as Barack Hussein lets Iran run unchecked.

As we get further from the Bush years and the House of Sauds influence, it's looking more and more like Iran has more common interests with us than the Gulf Monarchs and their support of Wahhabbist Transnational Jihadis (who thanked us for propping up Israel with 9/11).

The land under the Turks was a wasteland, many of the owned portions dilapidated under absentee landloards who legally sold their land. Kibbutzim settlers also pioneered land making deserts flourish.

Whether you realize it or not, you are paraphrasing a fraud piece written by Joan Peters in the 80's.

The idea that there was no Palestine, that the Desert was dry and barren, and that the Jews who survived the holocaust showed up on the scene and turned into farmers would be incredibly offensive were it not completely ridiculous and laughable.



It's interesting how many people repeat those same words "made the desert bloom," "barren," "made the land flourish" and actually believe them.

There are people in this very thread who have denied the very existence of Palestine... which is just silly.

Pretty sure Homo Habilis predates even them. Of course the Stromatolites got there first.

You don't have to turn the clock back too far or do very much research to understand the roots of the conflict.

Anyone who starts talking about "claims" and "before..." is only obfuscating.

The Allies dropped them off after WWII, the neighbors didn't like it and went all in, the US propped them up and swayed the outcome in their favor, and that relationship has persisted to this day.

It's all incredibly simple.

The only interesting part is how long will that "special relationship" endure... and under what terms will it dissolve...

[markm]

Holy fukk did this thread go full retard.

[Abraham]

KalashniKEV

Are you Palestinian?

If not, Muslim?

If not, an American academic?

What do you think of the American President?

Thanks!