• ISRAEL THREAD (Post new Israel threads = get banned)
    1,592 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;22444293]you disgust me. you clearly cannot think critically of Israels policys, i dare say. [editline]06:29PM[/editline] a racist and a homophobe. As far as I'm concerned, people like you, especially your countries government are going to be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.[/QUOTE] How am I a homophobe? Are you retarded? Those are the actual guidelines for beastiality. Also I can't say I completely agree with all of Israels policies. A lot are completely justified. Some I can see how they could be justified. Some I don't understand because I am [B]ignorant[/B] of the specific situation, but I won't go jumping to conclusions that Israel are nazis because of it. They wouldn't just arbitrarily pull shit like that.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22445127]How am I a homophobe? Are you retarded? Those are the actual guidelines for beastiality. Also I can't say I completely agree with all of Israels policies. A lot are completely justified. Some I can see how they could be justified. Some I don't understand because I am [B]ignorant[/B] of the specific situation, but I won't go jumping to conclusions that Israel are nazis because of it. They wouldn't just arbitrarily pull shit like that.[/QUOTE] Yes they would.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22445241]Yes they would.[/QUOTE] Pproov iit
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22445303]Pproov iit[/QUOTE] Prove they wouldn't.
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22443684]Well, the territories captured by Israel after the 1967 war. They include the Gaza strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem. Currently, Israel is in violation of dozens if not hundreds of resolutions by illegally occupying these lands. Wikipedia describes these territories as: "The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by many international organisations, governments and others to refer to the territory captured by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. They consist of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and much of the Golan Heights and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as Palestinian territories or Occupied Palestinian Territory. Palestinian Authority considers East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank, a position disputed by Israel." [/QUOTE] Ah thank you. Yeah, I agree that would be a nice step, though I remain unconvinced that it would bring about an end to the conflict. It may even make it worse. I think the majority of people on both sides would be annoyed, but largely accepting of the withdrawal (as any good compromise should leave both parties), but Hamas and other more extreme terrorist networks may simply return to business as usual and blow things up in Israeli population centers. Which, if minimizing civilian casualties is the goal, is potentially much much worse for civilian deaths over time than it is now. This again makes it a pretty substantial gamble for the government of Israel. A gamble that is paid for with the lives of its citizens if it loses. Plus it is hard as a government to justify providing food, power, and medical supplies to an area that hates you and consistently spawns enemy combatants. But on the flip side it's hard to justify to the world NOT providing such things. But again, I like the idea, I'm just not sure it is actually possible at this stage in the game without a serious cataclysm of some kind.
GunFox, do you only ban people who disagree with you? ClinicalThought had a post a few posts above yours where he was flaming, and you didn't do anything about it.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22446231]GunFox, do you only ban people who disagree with you? ClinicalThought had a post a few posts above yours where he was flaming, and you didn't do anything about it.[/QUOTE] Really? Point that out.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22445891]Ah thank you. Yeah, I agree that would be a nice step, [b]though I remain unconvinced that it would bring about an end to the conflict[/b]. It may even make it worse. I think the majority of people on both sides would be annoyed, but largely accepting of the withdrawal (as any good compromise should leave both parties), but Hamas and other more extreme terrorist networks may simply return to business as usual and blow things up in Israeli population centers. Which, if minimizing civilian casualties is the goal, is potentially much much worse for civilian deaths over time than it is now. This again makes it a pretty substantial gamble for the government of Israel. A gamble that is paid for with the lives of its citizens if it loses. Plus it is hard as a government to justify providing food, power, and medical supplies to an area that hates you and consistently spawns enemy combatants. But on the flip side it's hard to justify to the world NOT providing such things. But again, I like the idea, I'm just not sure it is actually possible at this stage in the game without a serious cataclysm of some kind.[/QUOTE] Nope, it won't end the conflict. That's why I said that its a good first step. Couple of things though. Hamas is willing to accept the 1967 borders, something which Khaled Meshaal himself uttered. Even he realizes that the unified state of Palestine is impossible, so he will compromise with just Gaza, West Bank and E. Jerusalem including the right of return for refugees that were displaced by the wars. Of course, the western powers and Israel point out that we should hardly expect terrorists to stick by their words. Which is foolish, really. If you give sovereignty of the state of Palestine to its leaders and define its borders, it will be immediately subject to internationally binding rules and regulations. After gaining sovereignty, if Palestine throws rockets into Israel, it will be treated as an act of war by the international community. Why would Palestine wish for self-destruction, then? It makes no sense for Hamas or any other faction to shoot rockets into its neighbors even after becoming a fully fledged country. Pakistan is somewhat of a failed state, but even it does not shoot rockets into mainland India (barring border skirmishes and Kashmir conflicts). Besides, Col. Qaddhafi's One state solution is hardly realistic. Two states living side by side, under the monitor of international community is the only viable solution. [editline]02:51PM[/editline] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;22446286]Really? Point that out.[/QUOTE] How about calling Muslims goatfuckers? :p That was pretty stupid.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22446286]Really? Point that out.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;22442183]You people are fucking idiots[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JDK721;22446502][/QUOTE] You people are fucking idiots[B] who read a news title and create your own narrative in your head[/B]
[QUOTE=JDK721;22446231]GunFox, do you only ban people who disagree with you? ClinicalThought had a post a few posts above yours where he was flaming, and you didn't do anything about it.[/QUOTE] No, generally I make it a point not to ban people in threads I debate in. If I ban them, then the debate is over and that isn't fun at all. Blatant violation of the rules will still earn a ban of course.
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22446469]How about calling Muslims goatfuckers? :p That was pretty stupid.[/QUOTE] "A man can have [B]sex[/B] with sheep, cows and camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine." "If one commits the act of [B]sodomy[/B] with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned." -Ayatollah Khomeini
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22446469]Nope, it won't end the conflict. That's why I said that its a good first step. Couple of things though. Hamas is willing to accept the 1967 borders, something which Khaled Meshaal himself uttered. Even he realizes that the unified state of Palestine is impossible, so he will compromise with just Gaza, West Bank and E. Jerusalem including the right of return for refugees that were displaced by the wars. Of course, the western powers and Israel point out that we should hardly expect terrorists to stick by their words. Which is foolish, really. If you give sovereignty of the state of Palestine to its leaders and define its borders, it will be immediately subject to internationally binding rules and regulations. After gaining sovereignty, if Palestine throws rockets into Israel, it will be treated as an act of war by the international community. Why would Palestine wish for self-destruction, then? It makes no sense for Hamas or any other faction to shoot rockets into its neighbors even after becoming a fully fledged country. Pakistan is somewhat of a failed state, but even it does not shoot rockets into mainland India (barring border skirmishes and Kashmir conflicts). Besides, Col. Qaddhafi's One state solution is hardly realistic. Two states living side by side, under the monitor of international community is the only viable solution. [/QUOTE] Huh, you make good points. Perhaps that is the best ending to this conflict. No ending will be perfect, but it would seem that this would generally make it in everyone's interest to at least stop shooting at each other.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22446722]No, generally I make it a point not to ban people in threads I debate in. If I ban them, then the debate is over and that isn't fun at all. Blatant violation of the rules will still earn a ban of course.[/QUOTE] So when he calls Arabs goat fuckers, that's not a clear violation of the rules? Does that mean I can call black people watermelon gobblers as long as I disagree with you one something?
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22446726]"A man can have [B]sex[/B] with sheep, cows and camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine." -Ayatollah Khomeini[/QUOTE] So that's why he was so eager to sell that cow. Sunnuva bitch!
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22446687]You people are fucking idiots[B] who read a news title and create your own narrative in your head[/B][/QUOTE] calling someone a fucking idiot is flaming broheim
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22446806]So when he calls Arabs goat fuckers, that's not a clear violation of the rules?[/quote] I don't see anyone calling arabs goat fuckers but you. [quote] Does that mean I can call black people watermelon gobblers as long as I disagree with you one something?[/QUOTE] Nope. Though you are welcome to try.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22446726]"A man can have [B]sex[/B] with sheep, cows and camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine." "If one commits the act of [B]sodomy[/B] with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned." -Ayatollah Khomeini[/QUOTE] False propaganda. [url]http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:false-accusation-upon-imam-khomeini-that-he-allowed-sex-with-animals-naudobillah&catid=55:present-century-propagandas&Itemid=50[/url]
[QUOTE=GunFox;22447045]I don't see anyone calling arabs goat fuckers but you. Nope. Though you are welcome to try.[/QUOTE] [quote]I don't know what the difference between cattle and cows are, but have you heard of methane? I don't know Israel's actual reason, but that's my guess. I don't know why chickens, I don't know why for a lot of things. Doesn't make sense to me. But considering I'm not an expert at this shit, and Israel has been defending itself against Muslim terror since it's creation, I'd say it probably is, and it has it's reasons. Maybe goats because Israel is trying to prevent STDs?[/quote] yes, I'm the one calling arabs goat fuckers.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22446919]calling [B]someone[/B] a fucking idiot is flaming broheim[/QUOTE] I said that all the people who get their information on the first sentence they read, even if the rest contradicts that first sentence, are of sub-normal intelligence. I defend my claim.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22447092]yes, I'm the one calling arabs goat fuckers.[/QUOTE] He is calling Muslims goat fuckers. Which isn't against the rules. Likewise I can call Christians ignorant fuckwads and also not be in violation of the rules. Hatred of religious groups is different than race. Religion is chosen, race is not. Judaism is a weird matter though as it is both a race and a religion. That's more of a case by case basis.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22447101]I said that all the people who get their information on the first sentence they read, even if the rest contradicts that first sentence, are of sub-normal intelligence. I defend my claim.[/QUOTE] irrelevant it's still flaming, but GunFox apparently has selective banning/reading since he didn't even see you call Muslims goat fuckers either.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22445891]Ah thank you. Yeah, I agree that would be a nice step, though I remain unconvinced that it would bring about an end to the conflict. It may even make it worse. I think the majority of people on both sides would be annoyed, but largely accepting of the withdrawal (as any good compromise should leave both parties), but Hamas and other more extreme terrorist networks may simply return to business as usual and blow things up in Israeli population centers. Which, if minimizing civilian casualties is the goal, is potentially much much worse for civilian deaths over time than it is now. This again makes it a pretty substantial gamble for the government of Israel. A gamble that is paid for with the lives of its citizens if it loses. Plus it is hard as a government to justify providing food, power, and medical supplies to an area that hates you and consistently spawns enemy combatants. But on the flip side it's hard to justify to the world NOT providing such things. But again, I like the idea, I'm just not sure it is actually possible at this stage in the game without a serious cataclysm of some kind.[/QUOTE] I don't know If I can completely agree with that statement. I do believe there would still be a few groups that would plot against Israel, but at least if there were 2 states those groups would be under threat by both the Israeli and a newly formed Palestenian police as well. It's almost as if you're placing it solely on the Arabs, mind you they get "painted" as the bad guys because they're forced doing more drastic and desperate actions. Lets not forget the history of Israel's suicide bombers and extremists as well. Look at what happened to their last PM who attempted formal peace negotiations. My point is practically any ethnic group would resort to the same actions if they were in the shoes of the Palestinians. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin[/url]
[QUOTE=Sporkfire;22447253]I don't know If I can completely agree with that statement. I do believe there would still be a few groups that would plot against Israel, but at least if there were 2 states those groups would be under threat by both the Israeli and a newly formed Palestenian police as well. It's almost as if you're placing it solely on the Arabs, mind you they get "painted" as the bad guys because they're forced doing more drastic and desperate actions. Lets not forget the history of Israel's suicide bombers and extremists as well. Look at what happened to their last PM who attempted formal peace negotiations. My point is practically any ethnic group would resort to the same actions if they were in the shoes of the Palestinians. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin[/url][/QUOTE] You are right and I did paint a one sided picture there. Neither party can really be trusted to adhere to a peace agreement. I apologize.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22447205]irrelevant it's still flaming, but GunFox apparently has selective banning/reading since he didn't even see you call Muslims goat fuckers either.[/QUOTE] You guy's seem the be the ones using that phrase, Critical indirectly referred to it and wasn't against the rules anyway, if it was then I would expect him to also ban every atheist that comments on the idiocy of Christianity in every "stupid Christians" thread that comes up in the news.
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22447063]False propaganda. [url]http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:false-accusation-upon-imam-khomeini-that-he-allowed-sex-with-animals-naudobillah&catid=55:present-century-propagandas&Itemid=50[/url][/QUOTE] Actually, it is that website that's false. My favourite part is where the guy tells us he will translate, despite there being english translations of this already, and doesn't include the entire translation. And then at the end: [B]My brother and sisters I hope you ignore my bad translations. I am not a translator so my translations may have many mistakes. But I hope I have done my duty, InshaAllah.[/B] "Yo these guys can't translate for shit, BTW SORRY THAT I CAN'T TRANSLATE FOR SHIT!" [editline]04:28PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22446469]Nope, it won't end the conflict. That's why I said that its a good first step. Couple of things though. Hamas is willing to accept the 1967 borders, something which Khaled Meshaal himself uttered. Even he realizes that the unified state of Palestine is impossible, so he will compromise with just Gaza, West Bank and E. Jerusalem including the right of return for refugees that were displaced by the wars. Of course, the western powers and Israel point out that we should hardly expect terrorists to stick by their words. Which is foolish, really. If you give sovereignty of the state of Palestine to its leaders and define its borders, it will be immediately subject to internationally binding rules and regulations. After gaining sovereignty, if Palestine throws rockets into Israel, it will be treated as an act of war by the international community. Why would Palestine wish for self-destruction, then? It makes no sense for Hamas or any other faction to shoot rockets into its neighbors even after becoming a fully fledged country. Pakistan is somewhat of a failed state, but even it does not shoot rockets into mainland India (barring border skirmishes and Kashmir conflicts). Besides, Col. Qaddhafi's One state solution is hardly realistic. Two states living side by side, under the monitor of international community is the only viable solution.[/QUOTE] Actually, if Israel will go back to '67 borders and will declare peace with Gaza and the West Bank, it might not just mean peace. A situation will easily occur like the one in Lebanon where there is a government which could be at war with Israel but even when it's at peace, a militant group such as Hezbollah can fire rockets at Israel and commit various other terroristic actions and Israel will then not be able to defend itself against such actions, since they are happening on another country's lands, and Israel will not be able to attack them without declaring war. So you see, if Israel were to pull out of the west bank, it would be highly unstable and there is a high risk that a militant group will do the things like I have written above.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22446785]Huh, you make good points. Perhaps that is the best ending to this conflict. No ending will be perfect, but it would seem that this would generally make it in everyone's interest to at least stop shooting at each other.[/QUOTE] It is really the only viable solution. Not only for the safety of occupied peoples, but for the safety of Israeli citizens as well. Status of E. Jerusalem though, is the big thorn in Israel's backside. E. Jerusalem of course is the location of the Old City. The Old City houses some of the most important religious places for about 3.7 billion people on earth: Dome of the Rock, Wailing wall, Church of the Holy Seppulchre. It was captured by Israel from Jordan after '67. Its obvious why Israel doesn't want to let go of this powerful piece of location, and its something that Palestine should further concede. Not to Israel, but to international community. I personally think that the Old City should be under the authority of UN so no one nation can claim a stake to it.
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22447495]It is really the only viable solution. Not only for the safety of occupied peoples, but for the safety of Israeli citizens as well. Status of E. Jerusalem though, is the big thorn in Israel's backside. E. Jerusalem of course is the location of the Old City. The Old City houses some of the most important religious places for about 3.7 billion people on earth: Dome of the Rock, Wailing wall, Church of the Holy Seppulchre. It was captured by Israel from Jordan after '67. Its obvious why Israel doesn't want to let go of this powerful piece of location, and its something that Palestine should further concede. Not to Israel, but to international community. I personally think that the Old City should be under the authority of UN so no one nation can claim a stake to it.[/QUOTE] You want to give the UN it's own State? May I mention the Bible and the Torah mention Jerusalem over and over again yet the Koran mentions it zero times. The Arabs have no claim to it in anyway apart from they owned it once and then Israel took it, why should Israel give it away to their enemies?
[QUOTE=BigDumbBear;22447495]It is really the only viable solution. Not only for the safety of occupied peoples, but for the safety of Israeli citizens as well. Status of E. Jerusalem though, is the big thorn in Israel's backside. E. Jerusalem of course is the location of the Old City. The Old City houses some of the most important religious places for about 3.7 billion people on earth: Dome of the Rock, Wailing wall, Church of the Holy Seppulchre. It was captured by Israel from Jordan after '67. Its obvious why Israel doesn't want to let go of this powerful piece of location, and its something that Palestine should further concede. Not to Israel, but to international community. I personally think that the Old City should be under the authority of UN so no one nation can claim a stake to it.[/QUOTE] There are issues with turning it over to the United Nations. Primarily that the United Nations has some of the most bizarre and problematic rules of engagement of any military force. Plus they have extremely limited resources. I'm not certain if they could effectively hold that portion of the city. Though I admittedly see no better alternative.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22447319]Actually, it is that website that's false. My favourite part is where the guy tells us he will translate, despite there being english translations of this already, and doesn't include the entire translation. And then at the end: [B]My brother and sisters I hope you ignore my bad translations. I am not a translator so my translations may have many mistakes. But I hope I have done my duty, InshaAllah.[/B] "Yo these guys can't translate for shit, BTW SORRY THAT I CAN'T TRANSLATE FOR SHIT!" [editline]04:28PM[/editline] Actually, if Israel will go back to '67 borders and will declare peace with Gaza and the West Bank, it might not just mean peace. A situation will easily occur like the one in Lebanon where there is a government which could be at war with Israel but even when it's at peace, a militant group such as Hezbollah can fire rockets at Israel and commit various other terroristic actions and Israel will then not be able to defend itself against such actions, since they are happening on another country's lands, and Israel will not be able to attack them without declaring war. So you see, if Israel were to pull out of the west bank, it would be highly unstable and there is a high risk that a militant group will do the things like I have written above.[/QUOTE] If Palestine is granted independence and is a formally recognized member of the UN, then it would be in their best interests to protect the integrity of their state by going after those who might discredit it IE (militants conspiring to attack Israel). [QUOTE=Thom12255;22447537]You want to give the UN it's own State? May I mention the Bible and the Torah mention Jerusalem over and over again yet the Koran mentions it zero times. The Arabs have no claim to it in anyway apart from they owned it once and then Israel took it, why should Israel give it away to their enemies?[/QUOTE] Thats just rhetoric that is used by both sides concerning many different manners, it's completely counter-productive and hasn't solved anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.