Middle East Conflict



The cruel irony about all this is that Biden, after bleeding support from people who have been opposed to what Israel has been doing, will now lose the support of everyone who loves what Israel is doing. Thousands of children killed in half a year just for him to come to this conclusion….smh.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
I didn’t do that, but you’re not the first person to misread and misunderstand others. It’s not just your fault.



Indeed, there is nothing hypothetical, but everything historical. European bigotry towards Jews meant the winners of the war had to find a place for those against whom crimes against humanity had been committed. Those winners carved up land to accommodate others.

This is not in the slightest hypothetical, so stop it already.

And, who are these “indigenous people” of whom you speak?! How long is your memory…and history?



That’s about as simple-minded of a ridiculous hypothetical as you could make. Bravo! Not what I said, but bravo nonetheless! What next, Fonzie? Jumping the shark?


Nice try. More questions! Writes itself.

B.O.R.I.N.G.
Click to expand...
Your original response cannot be reasonably read in the way you are claiming it now to have been intended.

He asked why, not how it is occurring. You answered as if the how is the why. It was a “might is right” response, whether your actually intended it to be or not.

The logical continuation I presented isn’t simple-minded, it is simply a logical continuation of your statement in the context of the question.

And if so many others have “misread” or “misinterpreted” your post, and only you seemingly did not, is not possible you did not convey what you actually meant effectively?

Everyone else is wrong?

And this exchange is boring because you are not being hailed as right?
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Indeed, there is nothing hypothetical, but everything historical. European bigotry towards Jews meant the winners of the war had to find a place for those against whom crimes against humanity had been committed. Those winners carved up land to accommodate others.

This is not in the slightest hypothetical, so stop it already.

And, who are these “indigenous people” of whom you speak?! How long is your memory…and history?
Click to expand...
Gosh. The land was carved up after the previous world war. The antisemitic Balfour promised part of it to the Jews even though Britain had promised it to Arabs to get them on our side in that war. Jewish terrorism hastened the departure of the British. The indigenous people were the Arabs (including Jews) who lived in the land before the Zionists decided to colonise the land.

I hesitate to assume I understand what you mean by memory and history. Are you really talking "Promised Land" until the first century AD and the Diaspora to argue that Jews are "indigenous" to the land? Not even the Zionists arguing for a homeland for Jews to escape persecution thought that, they knew they were colonisers and displacers.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I don’t think you were having the same debate as the person you were responding to.

They asked a question and you responded with an answer to a question, but not their question.

And your answer was one that is used by murderous dictators. So, again, if you don’t want the comparisons, don’t say or do things that make the comparisons easy to make.

There’s really no way to take your original response in the wrong of context.

IMG-1896.jpg
Click to expand...

General comment, only. It's always interesting to watch a "discussion" between someone who thinks they are clever and someone who is actually clever. Happens a lot on this thread.

You can tell which is which, btw, from the quality of the responses.
 
SebastianBlue said:
Your original response cannot be reasonably read in the way you are claiming it now to have been intended.

He asked why, not how it is occurring. You answered as if the how is the why. It was a “might is right” response, whether your actually intended it to be or not.

The logical continuation I presented isn’t simple-minded, it is simply a logical continuation of your statement in the context of the question.

And if so many others have “misread” or “misinterpreted” your post, and only you seemingly did not, is not possible you did not convey what you actually meant effectively?

Everyone else is wrong?

And this exchange is boring because you are not being hailed as right?
Click to expand...
No, it’s boring because I’ve explained myself ad nauseum, but you’re being pedantic and the little Palestinian “mafia” on here constantly has their hair on fire over everything anyone says.

It’s not news that whoever runs a war usually has a say in where the borders are drawn. After all, most wars are about taking land. But, you take “I’m mad at you, because you’re advocating ‘might is right’” to your grave, if you like, but reality and history are on my side…BUT I’M NOT ADVOCATING FOR THAT!!!

If you’re this butt hurt, pack your bags and go do something about it, but arguing the toss with me on what I said and meant is a joke.
 
halfcenturyup said:
General comment, only. It's always interesting to watch a "discussion" between someone who thinks they are clever and someone who is actually clever. Happens a lot on this thread.

You can tell which is which, btw, from the quality of the responses.
Click to expand...
And, which one are you suggesting you are in this nonsense?

I stated a simple, self-evident, historical fact, which has been true for millennia, especially in this area of the world, but supposedly I’m advocating for something I’ve never advocated.

If that colors me as unintelligent (or not clever) with you, I’ll live with the burden of an anonymous person on Bluemoon giving me the label and struggle on with the rest of my life chastened by your observation. Haha.

Always funny to say something, then be told not only what you said but what you meant, and then be further told that I’m not clever for saying it, but the pedant parsing my words for his own ends is the clever one.

One wonders how I will function in life without the “help” of the “clever” people here.

Did I mention how utterly boring this ENTIRE discussion has become? Are you sure you’re not all American college students?!
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Gosh. The land was carved up after the previous world war. The antisemitic Balfour promised part of it to the Jews even though Britain had promised it to Arabs to get them on our side in that war. Jewish terrorism hastened the departure of the British. The indigenous people were the Arabs (including Jews) who lived in the land before the Zionists decided to colonise the land.

I hesitate to assume I understand what you mean by memory and history. Are you really talking "Promised Land" until the first century AD and the Diaspora to argue that Jews are "indigenous" to the land? Not even the Zionists arguing for a homeland for Jews to escape persecution thought that, they knew they were colonisers and displacers.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn’t, but your history lesson was excellent.

I’m saying that the Allies carved it up after WWII because they won the war and thus had the ability, whether justified or not.

I’m not taking a “Who is right?” stance on the issue, nor have I. Instead, I have pointed out exactly what you said, albeit in more simplistic terms for the majority of casual readers.

I made a simple point: No matter who or what went before, often the victors share the spoils of war, regardless of what many, many others believe is right or proper.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
No, I wasn’t, but your history lesson was excellent.

I’m saying that the Allies carved it up after WWII because they won the war and thus had the ability, whether justified or not.

I’m not taking a “Who is right?” stance on the issue, nor have I. Instead, I have pointed out exactly what you said, albeit in more simplistic terms for the majority of casual readers.

I made a simple point: No matter who or what went before, often the victors share the spoils of war, regardless of what many, many others believe is right or proper.
Click to expand...
Now we've established what you meant, that the winners in a war often claim territory, we can turn to the alternative.

UN charter Aims, Article 1: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace"

So should Israel continue to try and gain territory by war and displacing other people (which you say you were not advocating), or abide by UN resolutions saying they shouldn't? .
 
BayernMan said:


God help us…
Click to expand...

This was always going to be the Netanyahu regime’s tactic. Israel have used it many times before. One of the ways they got the US to fund the Iron Dome so heavily was by saying if they didn’t receive the substantial subsidies and technical assistance they would be forced to more actively—and indiscriminately—bomb areas where rockets are or may be launched, killing more civilians than the US (not Israel) would be comfortable with, and potentially igniting a regional conflict.

It’s the “if you don’t get me the BB gun, I’ll just have to play with fireworks” strategy, only with thousands of human lives being used as leverage, rather than the neighbourhood cats. But then, when they get the BB gun, they shoot the cats, anyway.

This is how “allies” behave now; diplomacy at the end of a bombsight.
 
Vic said:
Gosh. The land was carved up after the previous world war. The antisemitic Balfour promised part of it to the Jews even though Britain had promised it to Arabs to get them on our side in that war. Jewish terrorism hastened the departure of the British. The indigenous people were the Arabs (including Jews) who lived in the land before the Zionists decided to colonise the land.

I hesitate to assume I understand what you mean by memory and history. Are you really talking "Promised Land" until the first century AD and the Diaspora to argue that Jews are "indigenous" to the land? Not even the Zionists arguing for a homeland for Jews to escape persecution thought that, they knew they were colonisers and displacers.
Click to expand...

Yes, most people that are bothered to read and understand Zionist issue know what you say is correct.

I don't know if it's been answered on here, but let me ask anyway; does anybody know why the US turned away the Jews from setting up in their land, at first and why Germany wasn't chosen as a place of resettlement after defeat?

As far as I know the European Ashkenazis are only related by religion the land in Israel, whilst the actual 'indigenous' Jews in the Arab region lived in relative peace with other religious denominations before the settlers came in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top