16 Sep 03
Originally posted by dfm65Interesting comparison David. Though I don't believe any prior ownership claims are valid, I do think compensation is in order to help sooth the wounds caused by the original land stealing. The difference in the Israeli’s case is they uprooted an entire people in a period when they really should have known better. Even now they're continuing to encroach on Palestinian land with illegal settlements.
i think you've raised an interesting point here, Dyl. as you know, here in Australia, the fact that Aboriginals were here before us Europeans is often used to argue that they have some prior ownership of land here (ie native title). the same goes in North America I guess. Malaysia actually discirminates in favour of Malays (the bumi putera - sons of the Earth ...[text shortened]... to say, i'm totally with you as regards the relevance of the above-quoted biblical snippets....
I'm afraid the reason the situation cannot seem to be solved is neither side really wants peace. They'll both put on a show for the rest of the world and make a token effort, but that's about it. They hate each other too much.
16 Sep 03
Originally posted by Reaperrefer to my earlier post regarding the feasibility of "historic books" - I'm still waiting for the UN to get in touch!!!
Hi. Good examples, although not on the same scale. To answer your last question, did any of these countries have a ancient religious text giving them a area, tell them they were going to be dispersed over the world, but gathered back in their country again?
16 Sep 03
Originally posted by dylBut if prior ownership claims aren't valid, how can there have been any 'land slealing'? No ownership implies no stealing, which in turn implies no compensation. I agree with you though that Middle East 'peace' talks are just for show.
Interesting comparison David. Though I don't believe any prior ownership claims are valid, I do think compensation is in order to help sooth the wounds caused by the original land stealing. The difference in the Israeli’s case is they uprooted an entire people in a period when they really should have known better. Even now they're continuing to encroach ...[text shortened]... t of the world and make a token effort, but that's about it. They hate each other too much.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
16 Sep 03
Originally posted by CFCthis is the root of the whole mess continuing, the "its their fault" mentality. You need to come to the conclusion it must be pretty screwed up on both sides if people are willing to blow them selves up, or if supposedly civil people are willing to sit back and let their government commit what some could consider ethnic clensing.
No way! It's not their fault if a palestinian blows up a pizza place when they're on the brink of peace.
Fact 1: Palastine is a terrorist state - why deny it?
Fact 2: The Israeli Government if unchecked by world pressure would reduce Palastine to a few concentration camps, and willingly murder all Palastini leaders who did not agree with this action. Again, it seems pointless to deny this?
Fact 3: No Israeli government can politically be seen to "give in" to the Palastine terrorists, in reality this means politically an Israeli government can not even offer a fair deal.
Fact 4: Palastine politically can not give up its terrorist tradition as it does not have an army, navy, airforce, specialised weapon systems, or nukes. They can just about manage basic targeted missiles - i.e. suicide bombers.
Fact 5: Palaistine kills a civilian and the killers are denounced as terrorist beasts, Israel kills a civilian and it is the civilian who is denouced as a terrorist beast.
Fact 6: Israel is systematically destroying many of the historically significant buildings and ruins that define the history of the people of Palastine.
Fact 7: Israel is paraniod for a good reason, we all know about it, and we all know how wrong it was. But, it doen not give Israel a get out of jail free card for its own actions. Israel could have led the world morally when it was founded as a nation, it could have taken all the wrongs dealt against its people and used that as an incentive to teach its children not to hate, but missed the boat.
Fact 8: Israel has lost nearly (if not all) the good will it held in the world community. Israel is now the aggressor not the victim, it is the aggressor that has to force the peace not the aggressed.
Thats my 2 pence
Andrew
17 Sep 03
Originally posted by latex bishopBecause the reason the Israelis killed that person was because they are terrorists.
Fact 5: Palaistine kills a civilian and the killers are denounced as terrorist beasts, Israel kills a civilian and it is the civilian who is denouced as a terrorist beast.
Andrew
17 Sep 03
has anyone seen that documentary about a small Palestinian boy who was purportedly shot by the Israeli army while sheltering with his father during a fire fight? there was a suggestion he was actually shot by the Palestinians for propaganda purposes (ie making it look like the Israelis had killed this innocent boy). What do you think?
17 Sep 03
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65I think that Jewish media moguls control about 85% of western media, and while this is not necessarily a bad thing, it pretty much precludes opposing points of view ON ZIONISM. Who did the documentary? Who paid for it and why? I think that we all have to learn to read and view with an EXTREMELY critical eye. Documentary implies "facts on file"... Except if you are Michael Moore. 😛
has anyone seen that documentary about a small Palestinian boy who was purportedly shot by the Israeli army while sheltering with his father during a fire fight? there was a suggestion he was actually shot by the Palestinians for propaganda p ...[text shortened]... ike the Israelis had killed this innocent boy). What do you think?
The fact on file is that "A man and his son were caught in a crossfire. The boy was shot and killed."
Who recovered the body, removed the bullet in autopsy and did balistics to determine weapon type? This is what we need to know, but i don't have time to look it up. Was it even done?
PS... This is why I don't like Mike Moore. He "arranges" events and calls it "documented"... See "Bowling For Columbine" and all the rest of his work. Very, very not good. The INTENTIONAL dumbing down of the world through propaganda and intentional "arranged truths".
17 Sep 03
2 edits
Originally posted by dfm65I think that things like this happen, I don't know for sure about this situation....but I'm sure such things do happen...
has anyone seen that documentary about a small Palestinian boy who was purportedly shot by the Israeli army while sheltering with his father during a fire fight? there was a suggestion he was actually shot by the Palestinians for propaganda p ...[text shortened]... ike the Israelis had killed this innocent boy). What do you think?
The media here in Holland is clearly pro-palestinian, we often see Israeli's taking on Palestian people on T.V. or read about it in the News Papers, that they are terrorists and not normal civilians isn't mentioned, but when a group of Palestinian terrorists start to fire rockets, it's only a small article on the second page of the morning paper....
It's very clear to me that it is the Media who control this situation, they can say what they want, and (almost) everybody will believe what they hear, I don't know many ethical and objective reporters anymore here in Holland...
How far is the Media involved with this situation in the U.S.? And other places?
Olav
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
17 Sep 03
Originally posted by CFCin this case "that" person is hypothetical, but...
Because the reason the Israelis killed that person was because they are terrorists.
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I am sure the British government viewed the American or French Revolutions as terrorist acts. The media in the west had real problems with how to define those involved in the uprising in chechnia.
So, I would say "that" person is a terrorist since that is what the Israeli government has labled him, and the Israeli government has more sway over the interpretation of current events than "that" person, or his cause.
The problem Israel faces is that it only takes a twist of power or a shift in the world public opinion and suddenly "that" person may redefine who is the terrorist.
Andrew
17 Sep 03
well, that certainly stirred up some opinions...
the war in israel is all about religion and territory. the war in the middle-east (in general) is about terorism, and Americas quest for self-glory.
No other countires should have become involved against the rights of the people.
STOP THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!
\/
| Peace Out...
PSS,,, sorry if i offended anyone(again)
18 Sep 03
Originally posted by latex bishopMy comment then was not saying that it is right to kill anyone. (not that you contradicted it. It's only that you replied to it) I certainly disagree when the Israelis kill a terroirst although they could've just arrested him and locked him away for life rather than killing him. Killings in this situation happens from both sides whereas they could've avoided the killing.
in this case "that" person is hypothetical, but...
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I am sure the British government viewed the American or French Revolutions as terrorist acts. The media in the west had real problems with how to define those involved in the uprising in chechnia.
So, I would say "that" person is a terrorist ...[text shortened]... e world public opinion and suddenly "that" person may redefine who is the terrorist.
Andrew
18 Sep 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyi wasn't expressing a view on what actually happened, merely reporting a view expressed in the documentary - that's why i said 'purportedly'. Sure, there is doubt over what actually happened. i never said this isn't the case.
I think that Jewish media moguls control about 85% of western media, and while this is not necessarily a bad thing, it pretty much precludes opposing points of view ON ZIONISM. Who did the documentary? Who paid for it and why? I think that we all have to learn to read and view with an EXTREMELY critical eye. Documentary implies "facts on file"... Exc ...[text shortened]... he INTENTIONAL dumbing down of the world through propaganda and intentional "arranged truths".
can you back up you claim about Jewish control of the Western media with facts?
I agree with you about Mike Moore - i was very disappointed with Bowling for Columbine...
18 Sep 03
Originally posted by dfm65Sorry if i implied you "supported" any documentary. I was only trying to support what you said... that "IF" there is such, we need to examine it very carefully.
i wasn't expressing a view on what actually happened, merely reporting a view expressed in the documentary - that's why i said 'purportedly'. Sure, there is doubt over what actually happened. i never said this isn't the case.
can you back up you claim about Jewish control of the Western media with facts?
I agree with you about Mike Moore - i was very disappointed with Bowling for Columbine...
As to the Jewish Media Moguls😛 I probably would have been better to say that "US" media seem to be controled by such. Only Rupert Murdock and the Mormon church seem to be exceptions here. I can't think of any other "media" groups that are not. (Thanks for Rupe, by the way. Best damned import from Down Under we ever got.😵 )
Confession. I can't stand Michael Moore so much that I have only seen one thing he did... some silly rant against the CEO of General Motors or Ford or some such... I was just stating what the Salt Lake Tribune (Lefty Paper) said about "arranged truths" in their review of his latest rant.