Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevie2)
    Same tricks they did with Jenin etc.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfCJ23umcBI
    Desperate hesbara.
    Firstly, every single person there is speaking with a very heavy Egyptian dialect not a single person speaks with Levant/palastinian accent, even the music played is by Egyptian singer .
    Second not a single green hamas bandanna is seen anywhere.
    Thirdly it seems like a brotherhood demonstration or even remembering rabia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Desperate hesbara.
    Firstly, every single person there is speaking with a very heavy Egyptian dialect not a single person speaks with Levant/palastinian accent, even the music played is by Egyptian singer .
    Second not a single green hamas bandanna is seen anywhere.
    Thirdly it seems like a brotherhood demonstration or even remembering rabia.
    After some 15 years of dialogue, i know who can never be trusted in anything they say.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    "Off-topic" and "non-constructive" stuff
    Thank you for your efforts in replying.

    I'm afraid that I didn't read fully past the first two paragraphs as the premise of your argument was incorrect and it would have been a futile waste of time.

    By attempting to move the goalposts, you have indicated that your capitulation to a demand which was at your behest. This, as always, I have accepted graciously.

    I hope that we get another opportunity to converse as I would like to clear up some of the other erroneous views and misconceptions that you supposedly hold...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Thank you for your efforts in replying.

    I'm afraid that I didn't read fully past the first two paragraphs as the premise of your argument was incorrect and it would have been a futile waste of time.

    By attempting to move the goalposts, you have indicated that your capitulation to a demand which was at your behest. This, as always, I have accepted graciously.

    I hope that we get another opportunity to converse as I would like to clear up some of the other erroneous views and misconceptions that you supposedly hold...
    I'm not sure why you felt the need to post something like this again a day after posting something more or less identical.

    In any case it's fairly obvious that I have not moved any goalposts and if anyone has it is you. The sequence of events was simply this:

    1) Someone asked "Why are there rocket sites in the middle of cities"
    2) You replied: "Where else shall they put them?"
    3) I proved that there is plenty of other space outside of cities to put them
    4) You tried to prove that those spaces are not as strategically useful as the spaces in cities

    Since 3 and 4 are not by any means mutually exclusive I think we can see that I did not move goalposts and your response did not disprove what I said. In fact, we are in total agreement that it makes sense for Hamas to fire their rockets from cities because this gives them the maximum strategic advantage. I just think, like other sane rational human beings, that this is an immoral and illegal thing to do.

    So, unless you intend to show that Hamas physically cannot store and fire rockets from outside cities then I think we both agree.

    Please feel free to have the last word as is your wont. I imagine it will not relate in any way to the actual content of my post and merely be self-congratulatory.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm not sure why you felt the need to post something like this again a day after posting something more or less identical.
    Because the other two were deleted for some reason.

    I thank you for encouraging me to do a little bit of research because I uncovered quite a gem in the course of it. I never would have been able to put my arguments on the Israel/Palestine conflict more forcefully had it not been for you.

    So once again, thank you for helping me disseminate the truth out there. Didn't I say that "WE" would do it together and you didn't believe me?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    There are no separate states for Native Americans or Aborigines, nor is there any significant call for them. .

    but as i said already they were all given their own land ( in US , states too) to recognise their historic heritage in those countires)
    if you have an issue with this, why should there then be a separate palestinian state then?


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    How exactly does history say it? .

    there is plenty of historic record of the hebrew tribes being basedin levant, from the romans to the egyptians to europeans . there is zero record of any muslim or even arab settlemnt there, until of course the arabs invaded jerusalem much much later.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not really getting what you're saying here; are you saying that the people who lived in Canaan (as it was then) before the Jews arrived were wiped out by the Muslim conquest? .
    no, the egyptian pharoes may have certainly done this before the muslims got there

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    No, not all the Muslims and Christians - only enough of them to guarantee a large Jewish demographic majority. .
    whatever it is , i see no problem in them having a constitution that requires a jewish majortity government, seeing as it was setup as a jewish state and homeland, as i would iran or saudi have a muslim only run state.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    As noted above, the Native Americans and Aborigines do not have a separate state, yet still live in their homeland. they were both given land of their own to own, (consequentally much of it was sold off/leased by them for profit, but thats beside the point)

    Furthermore, the idea of a Jewish state inherently restricts the right of non-Jews to live there, as it necessitates that Jews must be in the majority. .
    so does saudi (in terms of citezenship anyway. tell me is a non muslim allowed to enter mecca?


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The Jews first came to what is now Israel/Palestine in about 1300-1200 BCE. As noted above, there were people there before them. Therefore, history tells us that there have not always been Jews in Palestine. .
    agreed but the cannanittes/ ancient egyptian pharoes etc no longer exist. the celts used to exist first here in UK before the anglo saxons, but they do not anymore.


    (Original post by anarchism101)

    There were Arabs in the Levant long before Islam existed too, what's your point? .
    were there? how do you know, and in what numbers?



    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The Muslims did not attempt to wipe them all out. Most of the Jews were forced out by the Romans before the Muslims even got there. Indeed, when the Muslims took over the region the Jewish communities began to grow and prosper for the first time in centuries (for example, the Muslims allowed - even encouraged - the Jews to live in Jerusalem again - something the Romans had banned for 500 years).
    .
    so then why do muslims today have a problem with the jews having their own state in the homeland that judaism was established? i agree the hypocrisy highlights the moronic nature of islamist thinking

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    But Muslims do not consider the Jews to be Abraham's people - they consider themselves to be Abraham's people. From their point of view, the Jews departed from the Covenant when they did not accept first Jesus and then Mohammed as prophets. .

    and their holy book - the torah which states abraham was sent to jerusalem as the jews homeland - is also the holy book of the muslims. so by a purely theological argument, you are contradicting yourself also.
    but as i always have said there are other reasons why jews belong in jerusalem, from historical, political and even moral standpoint.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Also you're conflating Muslims and Arabs. Muslims have considered Jerusalem to be sacred for nearly as long as Islam has existed. .
    the first muslims were largely arab, and their territories and settlements all in arabia. islams first real link to jeruslaem ( depending on what you beelive as fact/fcition) was mohamemds claimed visin of flying to heaven from a rock in jerusalem on the back of a winged donkey. this is islamic tradition that essentially drove the early muslims to seize jerusalem under islamic control. but in reality all of islam was formualted and grew in arabia in the lands around and including mecca and medina, on entirely the otherside of the middle east.




    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I wasn't making an argument for legitimacy of any particular state, I was responding to the previous poster saying that the Muslim conquest was the Muslims "taking other people's land", and implying that the 'other people" in question were the Jews - yet at the time of the conquest the Jews were neither the political controllers nor the demographic majority of the area.
    agreed, but his statement still applied, the muslims were invadeing and conquereing land controlled by the byzantine empire ( which happened to be levant) the early muslims have the complete track record of invading other peoples lands and imposeing islamic rule - from the entire middle east, to north africa into southern/central europe and into fringes of asia - so much so that most muslims today are the ancestors of people that were conquered and colonised at some point by islamic armies - so his point still stands . The fact taht the jews were not intially in control of heir homeland doesnt detract from the logic of now giving them a homeland there. the arabs werent in control of mecca till the british took control of it and gave the muslims a holy city either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Every single war Israel has participated in has been out of self-defence - either because hostile neighbours attacked them first seeking to exterminate the Jewish people, or because they were forced to strike first (such as in 1967 when Syria was about to cut off Israel's water supply and Israel had solid intelligence the Arabs were going to attack).

    A two-state solution is a fantasy. If Israel withdrew from Judaea & Samaria (i.e. the "West Bank") then extremists would take over there just like they did in Gaza after Israel withdrew. Israel would have no strategic depth if it withdrew and so would not be able to defend itself. Israel should encourage more settlements in Judaea & Samaria, and then annex the region - but Palestinians living in the region should be given devolved autonomous administrations underneath Israeli sovereignity, but should not be allowed to vote in national elections. Or alternatively, they could have Jordanian citizenship and be able to vote in Jordanian elections - despite living under Israeli control. Jordan already is the Palestinian state.

    No division of Eretz Yisrael. No tolerance for Islamic terrorist organisations like Hamas - annihilate them. Construct the Third Temple on Temple Mount. This is the solution that is needed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting developments.

    The middle east being as complex as ever. It looks like the spat between Egypt and Qatar is now affecting the truce between Israel and Hamas.

    Is Qatar responsible for the collapse of the cease-fire in the South?

    A senior Fatah official is quoted by the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat as saying that the Qatari government threatened to expel the Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, if the Palestinian Islamist group agreed to the Egyptian cease-fire proposal.

    Mashaal, who is based in Qatar, has been blamed by Israeli officials in recent days for sabotaging a long-term truce along the Gaza front by repeatedly making new demands that Jerusalem is unwilling to meet.

    The Fatah official told Al-Hayat that Hamas has insisted that Qatar be given a seat at the negotiating table in Cairo. According to the official, Hamas wants either the Qatari foreign minister or the head of intelligence to be permitted to take part in the discussions.

    Egypt has adamantly refused to permit Qatar to participate in the cease-fire talks, according to the report. Cairo wants a Qatari apology for the government's policies toward Egypt since the military coup against the Muslim Brotherhood brought Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to power.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Chindits)
    Interesting developments.

    The middle east being as complex as ever. It looks like the spat between Egypt and Qatar is now affecting the truce between Israel and Hamas.
    Did I just see this right...You for once suggested that Hamas isn't responsible for something :eek:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:



    Well, that was awkward...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)



    Well, that was awkward...
    as far as i was aware , the term zionist simply refered to a jew that followed the principle that jews were to have a homeland as per their Torah. it has been hijacked i think by various anti-jewish peoples, islamists included, to try and use it in a derogatory manor, similar to various racial terms etc
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    as far as i was aware , the term zionist simply refered to a jew that followed the principle that jews were to have a homeland as per their Torah. it has been hijacked i think by various anti-jewish peoples, islamists included, to try and use it in a derogatory manor, similar to various racial terms etc
    Irrelevant and not related to the post.

    If you wish to make an irrelevant point not related to what you I have posted, please do not quote me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Super Cicero)
    Every single war Israel has participated in has been out of self-defence - either because hostile neighbours attacked them first seeking to exterminate the Jewish people, or because they were forced to strike first (such as in 1967 when Syria was about to cut off Israel's water supply and Israel had solid intelligence the Arabs were going to attack).

    A two-state solution is a fantasy. If Israel withdrew from Judaea & Samaria (i.e. the "West Bank") then extremists would take over there just like they did in Gaza after Israel withdrew. Israel would have no strategic depth if it withdrew and so would not be able to defend itself. Israel should encourage more settlements in Judaea & Samaria, and then annex the region - but Palestinians living in the region should be given devolved autonomous administrations underneath Israeli sovereignity, but should not be allowed to vote in national elections. Or alternatively, they could have Jordanian citizenship and be able to vote in Jordanian elections - despite living under Israeli control. Jordan already is the Palestinian state.

    No division of Eretz Yisrael. No tolerance for Islamic terrorist organisations like Hamas - annihilate them. Construct the Third Temple on Temple Mount. This is the solution that is needed.
    Starting to wonder now is it's TSR mod policy to add another crazy to the mix whenever this thread looks like drying up for a little.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    but as i said already they were all given their own land ( in US , states too) to recognise their historic heritage in those countires)
    In other words, they were given autonomous areas within the larger states. The British made suggestions about similar proposals for Palestine in the 1930s. The Zionists rejected this and demanded a completely separate state.

    if you have an issue with this, why should there then be a separate palestinian state then?
    Actually, I'd prefer a single binational state, but unfortunately I don't believe Israel would ever accept such an idea, so a two-state solution is probably the best we can do given the situation.


    there is plenty of historic record of the hebrew tribes being basedin levant, from the romans to the egyptians to europeans
    That doesn't answer my question. Why does that make it their 'homeland'?

    there is zero record of any muslim or even arab settlemnt there, until of course the arabs invaded jerusalem much much later.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans


    whatever it is , i see no problem in them having a constitution that requires a jewish majortity government, seeing as it was setup as a jewish state and homeland
    Turkey was set up as a Turkish state and a homeland for Turks. Does that justify their genocides of Turkey's Armenian, Assyrian and Greek populations, and the decades-long brutal forced subjugation and attempted assimilation of its Kurdish population, in order to create a sizable Turkish majority.

    as i would iran or saudi have a muslim only run state.
    Most of the world sees Saudi Arabia and Iran as reactionary, brutal and totalitarian regimes for precisely this reason. Israel, by contrast, claims to be a liberal democracy.


    so does saudi (in terms of citezenship anyway. tell me is a non muslim allowed to enter mecca?
    The Saudi regime is in my opinion one of the most detestable in the world. But what does that have to do with Israel/Palestine.

    agreed but the cannanittes/ ancient egyptian pharoes etc no longer exist.
    Nor, by most anthropological standards, did the Jews exist as a single group by the 19th century. They were Ashkenazi, or Sephardi or Mizrahi. They still broadly held to the same theology, but so do Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians.

    the celts used to exist first here in UK before the anglo saxons, but they do not anymore.
    Try telling the Welsh that.

    were there? how do you know, and in what numbers?
    See above about the Ghassanids and Nabateans.

    so then why do muslims today have a problem with the jews having their own state in the homeland that judaism was established?
    Because that state was established by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Muslim and Christian Arabs from their home. And 'home' here as in the sense that it was the place where they'd been born and grown up, and where their parents had been born and grown up and so on, not their 'home' according to a national-religious narrative based on the fact that their distant ancestors had lived there nearly 2000 years ago.

    and their holy book - the torah which states abraham was sent to jerusalem as the jews homeland - is also the holy book of the muslims. so by a purely theological argument, you are contradicting yourself also.
    The term 'Jew' did not exist at this point in the Torah - it came from the later Kingdom of Judah. According to both Muslims and Jews, Jerusalem was the promised land to the descendants of Abraham. According to Muslims, this includes the descendants of both Abraham's sons - Isaac (whose descendants were the Israelites/Hebrews) and Ishmael (whose descendants were the Arabs).. According to Jews, it includes only the former.

    the first muslims were largely arab, and their territories and settlements all in arabia. islams first real link to jeruslaem ( depending on what you beelive as fact/fcition) was mohamemds claimed visin of flying to heaven from a rock in jerusalem on the back of a winged donkey. this is islamic tradition that essentially drove the early muslims to seize jerusalem under islamic control. but in reality all of islam was formualted and grew in arabia in the lands around and including mecca and medina, on entirely the otherside of the middle east.
    Islam, like all religions, including Judaism, adopted bits and pieces of already-existing religions. Indeed, it adopted traditions of Judaism as well. According to the Quran, yes Islam (at least, as we would see it - according to Muslims Islam is an unbroken line back to Abraham which the Jews broke from when they rejected Jesus and the Christians broke from when they rejected Muhammad) began in Arabia with Muhammad - but according to the Torah, Abraham first came to God when he was somewhere in Mesopotamia - modern Iraq or Syria.


    agreed, but his statement still applied, the muslims were invadeing and conquereing land controlled by the byzantine empire ( which happened to be levant) the early muslims have the complete track record of invading other peoples lands and imposeing islamic rule - from the entire middle east, to north africa into southern/central europe and into fringes of asia - so much so that most muslims today are the ancestors of people that were conquered and colonised at some point by islamic armies - so his point still stands . The fact taht the jews were not intially in control of heir homeland doesnt detract from the logic of now giving them a homeland there. the arabs werent in control of mecca till the british took control of it and gave the muslims a holy city either.
    This applies to pretty much every empire in history, it's not unique to the Caliphate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chindits)
    Terrorist state of Qatar
    Wait, what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are Hamas animals, or something lower?

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    In other words, they were given autonomous areas within the larger states. The British made suggestions about similar proposals for Palestine in the 1930s. The Zionists rejected this and demanded a completely separate state.
    .
    the british made various proposals, one of which was to give the jews a state. and a final mandate was prepared, the various arab nations refused to accept it, so the jews simply declared israel to exist, then there was a free for all for various regions between jordan egypt and isreal, inc WB and gaza. their boundaries came about from these conflicts, not british proposals


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Actually, I'd prefer a single binational state, but unfortunately I don't believe Israel would ever accept such an idea, so a two-state solution is probably the best we can do given the situation. .
    binational state is a dumb idea, almost complelty unworkable logiistcally speaking, as is i beleive the segregated jersualem with a 'corridor of access' I mean these various groups cant live togehter in the current boundary arrangement, how should such a ludicrous meandering boundary scenario work?

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    That doesn't answer my question. Why does that make it their 'homeland'? .
    it was made their homeland becuase thats what the british wanted. jsut as they set mecca as islams/arabs homeland. if you disagree with this principle then all the arab borders should now scrapped and their should a massive battle royal to see who gets what share of the land - my money tho would be on israel in this case.


    yes thanks for that, dont see any point. i can post links of ancients tribes that ruled mecca too that werent muslim - so you are saying kick all the muslims out of mecca?:confused:


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Turkey was set up as a Turkish state and a homeland for Turks. Does that justify their genocides of Turkey's Armenian, Assyrian and Greek populations, and the decades-long brutal forced subjugation and attempted assimilation of its Kurdish population, in order to create a sizable Turkish majority. .
    no idont agree with genocide, the turk adminisitration was scum a hangover of the Ottoman claiphate that the britsh defeated to take ownership of palestine region. again i dont see what relevance this is


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Most of the world sees Saudi Arabia and Iran as reactionary, brutal and totalitarian regimes for precisely this reason. Israel, by contrast, claims to be a liberal democracy. .
    its a democracy i wouldnt call it liberal ( i wouldnt call any middle eastern society liberal) but it is still ahead of the islamic arab world in that respect.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The Saudi regime is in my opinion one of the most detestable in the world. But what does that have to do with Israel/Palestine. .
    saudi runs all sunni islamist agendas, including palestine

    and surely the comparisons you made of isreal society are far worse in saudi, so why no outcry and thread on saudi ( if this is your genuine concern

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Nor, by most anthropological standards, did the Jews exist as a single group by the 19th century. They were Ashkenazi, or Sephardi or Mizrahi. They still broadly held to the same theology, but so do Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians. .
    so?

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Try telling the Welsh that. .
    the welsh are not celts, they are a hybrid of various invasion over the years. probably they have more 'celtic ' heritage than the average english, but not much.
    but even without the direct genetic link wales is made a homeland to the welsh. so why shouldnt jews have their homeland in a traceable aprt fo their history?


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    See above about the Ghassanids and Nabateans.



    Because that state was established by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Muslim and Christian Arabs from their home. And 'home' here as in the sense that it was the place where they'd been born and grown up, and where their parents had been born and grown up and so on, not their 'home' according to a national-religious narrative based on the fact that their distant ancestors had lived there nearly 2000 years ago. .
    thats not even a half-truth is it. leading up to the point, arabs and jews slaughtered each other freely and displaced each other, the jews were in minority and so could not bully the arabs. in fact prior to this there is plenty of record of jews actually buying land from arabs . im afraid the british idea may have been flawed - look at any partiton india-pakistan for exmaple, you dont think there was millions of hindus and sikhs living in pakisitan that had to move, and vice-versa. you are trying pin blame entire on jews for this movement. britain decided to give muslims a homeland in indian subcontinent and caused one of the biggest movmenet of peopls form their homes in human history , for why? who knows. the partition to create israel makes far more sense to me, because at least judaism belonged to that region in the first place. the arabs were given numerous countries to live, in fact many arabs did move to egypt and jordan.



    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The term 'Jew' did not exist at this point in the Torah - it came from the later Kingdom of Judah. According to both Muslims and Jews, Jerusalem was the promised land to the descendants of Abraham. According to Muslims, this includes the descendants of both Abraham's sons - Isaac (whose descendants were the Israelites/Hebrews) and Ishmael (whose descendants were the Arabs).. According to Jews, it includes only the former.
    .
    what a daft statement, the word 'islam' is not used in the quran as a title for the religion , and im fairly sure it doesnt mention Muslims either, jsut beleivers, so what are you trying to say, they dont exist? jew is a collective term, it can apply to all the descendants of the israelite tribes . the purpose of israel was not to apply a genetic link to the land - but to allow all jews as a religious groups to live there, where the judaic kingdom if you like began.
    the torah doesnt mention muslims nor that arabs were decednant of ishmael. this is an idea that mohammed propagated. and the idea makes little sense anyway
    (Original post by anarchism101)

    Islam, like all religions, including Judaism, adopted bits and pieces of already-existing religions. Indeed, it adopted traditions of Judaism as well. According to the Quran, yes Islam (at least, as we would see it - according to Muslims Islam is an unbroken line back to Abraham which the Jews broke from when they rejected Jesus and the Christians broke from when they rejected Muhammad) began in Arabia with Muhammad - but according to the Torah, Abraham first came to God when he was somewhere in Mesopotamia - modern Iraq or Syria. .
    but both jews and muslims accept the torah which states that the 'kingdom of israel and judea' was to be established by abraham, and that it was to be based around the location known as Jerusalem between the judea mountains or so. yes both copied from earlier probably pagan relgions, judaism from babylonian and islam from arab pagan but to repeat , the purpose of state of israel is not to account for theology soley.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    This applies to pretty much every empire in history, it's not unique to the Caliphate.
    indeed but they arnt applicable in this region are they. essentially islam ended up where its amries were able to conquer. the same applies to jerusalem. most palestines are probably part-arab, ethnically speaking, only because the arabs first invaded, then mass-relocated there over centuries
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Salah al-Aruri praises "heroic action" of Kassam Brigades; Hamas had previously denied kidnapping Fraenkel, Shaer and Yifrah.

    A senior Hamas official admitted for the first time on Wednesday that the organization's armed wing, the Kassam Brigades, was behind the kidnapping and murder of Israeli teens Nafatli Fraenkel, Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah in the West Bank in June.

    The Hamas official, Salah al-Aruri made the comments during a conference of Islamic clerics in Turkey. He praised the "heroic action of the Kassam Brigades.



    Fresh off the press, so yet to be translated into English.

    Just shows what utter fools those people who believed Hamas' denials are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chindits)
    Are Hamas animals, or something lower?

    Substitute "babies" for neighbours (doesn't really make a difference) and you have yourself a match.

    "Scientists often see passive, or indirect, selfish behavior in animals — for example, they may see an animal hide behind its neighbor to escape from a predator. "That's common to observe," says Robert Young, a biologist with the University of Salford Manchester in the U.K. "They may be hiding behind someone else, but they're not actively pushing someone forward.""


    So we have established quite firmly that HAMAS are "animals" and seeing as how all humans are animals and so on and so forth, we can unequivocally state that HAMAS, like the IDF, like the British Army, like you Chindits, like MEING, like Barack Obama and like Morgan Freeman, are all animals.



    Word to the wise: Using propaganda like that may work on the gullible and elderly but here, we deal in facts and figures.

    64 Israeli soldiers killed by Al Qassam Brigades along with 3 "Israeli civilians":

    Civilian A) Arab Bedouin who was afforded no air raid shelter or even warning system.

    Civilian B) A Thai national who happened to turn into an "Israeli citizen" almost by magic overnight.

    Civilian C) A food volunteer who was delivering food to IDF soldiers near the border.

    It seems the only "Israeli civilians" killed in this skirmish have been...wait! There were none...



    On the other hand, the death toll of the Palestinians stands at 2038.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yet no one claimed that "Hamas" isn't a terrorist.
    This does not excuse any mistreatment and barbaric acts to the citizens of Palestine which has unfortunately been conducted by the IDF.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.