quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

just read this heading on a blog and totally believe it. its insightful and kind of a bottom line:

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."



"gaza death camps?" Rupert Murdoch "calls for death for all muslims?" what? and you want to be taken seriously?

quote:

Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

oh and, there is no "Palestine" as a nation-state really, or Palestinian people per se...Palestine is historical geographical area and it can be used in reference refer to ALL people who were born and live there.

the contemporary understanding of "Palestinian" that liberals like to use, solely referencing the arabs who live there, was actually a creation by the PLO as a way to create further support in their battle with Israel and to get the uninitiated to believe they (the Palestinians) were rightful owners (heirs even) of the land and were being invaded/inhabited by the jews.

the majority of arabs living in the area today are descendants from relatively recent immigrations to it from neighboring muslim countries.

quote:

oh and, there is no "Palestine" as a nation-state really, or Palestinian people per se...Palestine is historical geographical area and it can be used in reference refer to ALL people who were born and live there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

oh and, there is no "Palestine" as a nation-state really, or Palestinian people per se...Palestine is historical geographical area and it can be used in reference refer to ALL people who were born and live there.

the contemporary understanding of "Palestinian" that liberals like to use, solely referencing the arabs who live there, was actually a creation by the PLO as a way to create further support in their battle with Israel and to get the uninitiated to believe they (the Palestinians) were rightful owners (heirs even) of the land and were being invaded/inhabited by the jews.

the majority of arabs living in the area today are descendants from relatively recent immigrations to it from neighboring muslim countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Here's one UK report on the massacre in Nigeria:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/witnesses-claim-2000-people-were-killed-in-a-boko-haram-assault-that-destroyed-a-town-9969252.html
This appalling act of barbarism seems to have stayed more or less completely under the radar in the West, overshadowed by the events in Paris. This is but one measure of the contempt and disregard the West has for non-Western lives.
There are no Muslim armies in Western lands, there are Western armies in Muslim lands. Precisely who is the aggressor?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

oh and, there is no "Palestine" as a nation-state really, or Palestinian people per se...Palestine is historical geographical area and it can be used in reference refer to ALL people who were born and live there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

oh and, there is no "Palestine" as a nation-state really, or Palestinian people per se...Palestine is historical geographical area and it can be used in reference refer to ALL people who were born and live there.

the contemporary understanding of "Palestinian" that liberals like to use, solely referencing the arabs who live there, was actually a creation by the PLO as a way to create further support in their battle with Israel and to get the uninitiated to believe they (the Palestinians) were rightful owners (heirs even) of the land and were being invaded/inhabited by the jews.

the majority of arabs living in the area today are descendants from relatively recent immigrations to it from neighboring muslim countries.

Actually, if you look at maps that are more than 60 or so years old there was a nation called "Palestine".

If there is or was historically recently a nation known as "Palestine" then it follows that there are people who would identify as "Palestinian" if their ancestors had inhabited this region.
You appear to be incorrect no matter what FOX says.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

oh and, there is no "Palestine" as a nation-state really, or Palestinian people per se...Palestine is historical geographical area and it can be used in reference refer to ALL people who were born and live there.

the contemporary understanding of "Palestinian" that liberals like to use, solely referencing the arabs who live there, was actually a creation by the PLO as a way to create further support in their battle with Israel and to get the uninitiated to believe they (the Palestinians) were rightful owners (heirs even) of the land and were being invaded/inhabited by the jews.

the majority of arabs living in the area today are descendants from relatively recent immigrations to it from neighboring muslim countries.

Actually, if you look at maps that are more than 60 or so years old there was a nation called "Palestine".

If there is or was historically recently a nation known as "Palestine" then it follows that there are people who would identify as "Palestinian" if their ancestors had inhabited this region.
You appear to be incorrect no matter what FOX says.

could you please provide a link to one of the maps you refer to?

every map I have seen that shows Palestine on it, shows it as a HUGE area encompassing what is now apox 4 - 6 nations, thus making it a region not a nation...

your post implies there is no distinction between races that occupy a region...

example: there are no Chinese or Japanese they are all just Asian

an ya know what that's ok, I am perfectly willing to accept that way of seeing thing, so long as you answer a question for me. why is it the Palestinains aren't fighting for the return of ALL of Palestine and not just the tiny part of it known as Israel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Here's one UK report on the massacre in Nigeria:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/witnesses-claim-2000-people-were-killed-in-a-boko-haram-assault-that-destroyed-a-town-9969252.html
This appalling act of barbarism seems to have stayed more or less completely under the radar in the West, overshadowed by the events in Paris. This is but one measure of the contempt and disregard the West has for non-Western lives.
There are no Muslim armies in Western lands, there are Western armies in Muslim lands. Precisely who is the aggressor?

You bring up an example of a militant Islam group (Boko Haram), go on an anti-Israel rant (no one saw that coming ) and then end up bashing "the West" as aggressors for having armies in Muslim lands.

I, for one, want to change my New Year's wishes to include the disappearance of militant religious groups from the face of the Earth. We'd all live much happier and safer for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Here's one UK report on the massacre in Nigeria:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/witnesses-claim-2000-people-were-killed-in-a-boko-haram-assault-that-destroyed-a-town-9969252.html
This appalling act of barbarism seems to have stayed more or less completely under the radar in the West, overshadowed by the events in Paris. This is but one measure of the contempt and disregard the West has for non-Western lives.
There are no Muslim armies in Western lands, there are Western armies in Muslim lands. Precisely who is the aggressor?

You bring up an example of a militant Islam group (Boko Haram), go on an anti-Israel rant (no one saw that coming ) and then end up bashing "the West" as aggressors for having armies in Muslim lands.
I, for one, want to change my New Year's wishes to include the disappearance of militant religious groups from the face of the Earth. We'd all live much happier and safer for it.

I'm glad that we agree that the world would be a far better place following the " the disappearance of [all] militant religious groups". No doubt about that at all from where I sit.

quote:

As regards the logical order of my post, I was responding to the OP, which travelled about a bit as others have noted above. If you are seeking an underlying order connecting the various points then the different values placed on Western and non-Western lives is one theme that ties the points together. For example, I referenced:
*Boko Haram kills a couple of thousand and there's barely a word in the Western media. 17 die in Paris and there's howls of (perfectly justified) outrage.
* The Israelis can butcher c2000 Palestinians (overwhelmingly civilians) in a few weeks of intense, virtually indiscriminate bombing in Gaza and Western leaders choose to focus on Israel's right to "self-defence", not the slaughter. The sight of Bibi Netanyahoo - who ordered and led the slaughter - posing as a defender of human rights is repulsive yet escapes any kind of critical mention in the Western media.
* In our anger at appalling terrorist acts committed against the West, we tend to overlook the fact that our armies are in their lands and that there are no Muslim armies occupying Western lands. Also omitted from the conversation is the point that had our armies not been in their lands, they might not have reacted by bombing Western cities.
The kinds of double standards listed above permeate the discussion of these issues. It is relevant and necessary to draw attention to them and hope for a more balanced discussion of the issues. Currently Western behaviour is part of the problem, not the solution. The West is not the blameless victim, it is an active player and one of the causal factors.
If we are serious about seeking a just fair resolution of these issues, then it is incumbent upon us to change our behaviours as part of that solution. There are a lot of changes that the Arab/Muslim world must undergo too, but it is up to us to get our own house in order before we start pointing out the flaws or demanding changes in others' houses. Don't you agree?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

an ya know what that's ok, I am perfectly willing to accept that way of seeing thing, so long as you answer a question for me. why is it the Palestinains aren't fighting for the return of ALL of Palestine and not just the tiny part of it known as Israel?

quote:

And, in case you've missed it (would have had to be willful, mind you), I'm all for pulling out of the Middle East. I've stated before that as long as Middle Eastern countries don't fuck with Israel, the US should leave them all alone. I know that bugs the shit out of you, but, you'll just have to deal with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Why should Israel enjoy special protection for its colonization and stealing Arab land? The process continues today under US approval. Additionally, I wonder, how have the American people been duped into accepting the false righteousness of the Israeli position?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

oh and, there is no "Palestine" as a nation-state really, or Palestinian people per se...Palestine is historical geographical area and it can be used in reference refer to ALL people who were born and live there.

the contemporary understanding of "Palestinian" that liberals like to use, solely referencing the arabs who live there, was actually a creation by the PLO as a way to create further support in their battle with Israel and to get the uninitiated to believe they (the Palestinians) were rightful owners (heirs even) of the land and were being invaded/inhabited by the jews.

the majority of arabs living in the area today are descendants from relatively recent immigrations to it from neighboring muslim countries.

Actually, if you look at maps that are more than 60 or so years old there was a nation called "Palestine".

If there is or was historically recently a nation known as "Palestine" then it follows that there are people who would identify as "Palestinian" if their ancestors had inhabited this region.
You appear to be incorrect no matter what FOX says.

could you please provide a link to one of the maps you refer to?

every map I have seen that shows Palestine on it, shows it as a HUGE area encompassing what is now apox 4 - 6 nations, thus making it a region not a nation...

your post implies there is no distinction between races that occupy a region...

example: there are no Chinese or Japanese they are all just Asian

an ya know what that's ok, I am perfectly willing to accept that way of seeing thing, so long as you answer a question for me. why is it the Palestinains aren't fighting for the return of ALL of Palestine and not just the tiny part of it known as Israel?

Here's a map from 1919:



Looks like Palestine is there. Which 4-6 nations are you referring to that are/were carved out of the area known as "Palestine" on this map?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Why should Israel enjoy special protection for its colonization and stealing Arab land? The process continues today under US approval. Additionally, I wonder, how have the American people been duped into accepting the false righteousness of the Israeli position?

I think the American people were duped on a lot of things. It was probably easier during the Cold War when Israel's enemies were perceived as pro-Soviet (although that perception may have been part of the overall "dupe"). I've also heard from those who take a great interest in Bible prophecy that it's "God's will" that America support Israel at all costs. It is the "Holy Land" after all. Then there's the argument that "Israel is a democracy" which falls in line with the stated foreign policy objective of "making the world safe for democracy."

On a practical level, we may be stuck between a rock and a hard place. I actually agree with DS that we'd be better off if we pulled out of the Middle East entirely. But now that we've been there for so long, the fat's in the fire and it's all the more difficult to pull out. 20/20 hindsight, but we never should have gotten involved in that region in the first place. But now that we have, we've painted ourselves into a corner. We'd rather go to war than admit to a mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

oh and, there is no "Palestine" as a nation-state really, or Palestinian people per se...Palestine is historical geographical area and it can be used in reference refer to ALL people who were born and live there.

the contemporary understanding of "Palestinian" that liberals like to use, solely referencing the arabs who live there, was actually a creation by the PLO as a way to create further support in their battle with Israel and to get the uninitiated to believe they (the Palestinians) were rightful owners (heirs even) of the land and were being invaded/inhabited by the jews.

the majority of arabs living in the area today are descendants from relatively recent immigrations to it from neighboring muslim countries.

Actually, if you look at maps that are more than 60 or so years old there was a nation called "Palestine".

If there is or was historically recently a nation known as "Palestine" then it follows that there are people who would identify as "Palestinian" if their ancestors had inhabited this region.
You appear to be incorrect no matter what FOX says.

could you please provide a link to one of the maps you refer to?

every map I have seen that shows Palestine on it, shows it as a HUGE area encompassing what is now apox 4 - 6 nations, thus making it a region not a nation...

your post implies there is no distinction between races that occupy a region...

example: there are no Chinese or Japanese they are all just Asian

an ya know what that's ok, I am perfectly willing to accept that way of seeing thing, so long as you answer a question for me. why is it the Palestinains aren't fighting for the return of ALL of Palestine and not just the tiny part of it known as Israel?

Here's a map from 1919:



Looks like Palestine is there. Which 4-6 nations are you referring to that are/were carved out of the area known as "Palestine" on this map?

Ya beat me to it.


There are several but this one is as good as any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

just read this heading on a blog and totally believe it. its insightful and kind of a bottom line:

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."



"gaza death camps?" Rupert Murdoch "calls for death for all muslims?" what? and you want to be taken seriously?