Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Egypt uncovers 'Israeli spy ring' Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Speaking the truth!!!

    By the way the British dont own anything apart from UK, the other nations were hijacked just like Palestina. IsraHell as I like to call it, will never exist in peace until Palestians are given their rights and land back.

    Well clearly not "speaking the truth", as pointed out earlier in the thread this is riddled with historical inaccuracies.

    And, although I'm not really as clued up on this as I should be, I would say that the only chance for Israel to exist in peace is if it is recognised by its neighbors, many of whom currently seem to want to deny its right to exist. I am by no means suggesting that Israel is blameless and should not be held accountable for its actions, but as the only truly democratic state in the area I think it deserves a bit of support.

    Can't understand what any of this has to do with "Israeli spy rings", though.

    And please don't resort to offensive slurs - "IsraHell"? There is no place for that in any structured debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nazirard)
    I seriously feel like I'm wasting time arguing here because all the arguments I've read from the zionists (including Borismor's) don't actually back any of the heinous crimes Israel has made and yet they're arguing for them.
    .

    Which probably explains why you were unable to debunk any of them, while your own arguments were either historically inaacurate or totally bogus?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nazirard)
    I seriously feel like I'm wasting time arguing here because all the arguments I've read from the zionists (including Borismor's) don't actually back any of the heinous crimes Israel has made and yet they're arguing for them.

    None of the Zionists recognise the Palestinians as humans with homes.
    Classic straw man argument.

    Nobody here argued for anything Israel is doing today, the argument was about pre-48 events.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    Cba with the rest of the post, but no... being British mandate does not mean that the country 'belonged to the British'. Palestine (Transjordan) was not a part of the empire. :rolleyes:
    Palestine was under direct British rule.

    What are the differences between being under direct rule and belonging to a certain country?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maria11)
    India was owned by the Mughal empire and after the successive sultans in their principalities until the East India company 'claimed ownership'
    It may have claimed ownership, but it still ruled over a large part of the Indian subcontinent and thus it ruled India.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nazirard)
    End result. Desqualified for leaving out the important bits unless you don't really have any knowledge of it.
    It's not my fault you can't argue properly.


    Oh look it's the anti-semite card even though I said nothing to suggest snti-semitism. And if you had any knowledge of what's going on in Israel then you would know how much of a fool you sound agreeing with Stalin.:rolleyes:
    Enlighten us, what is going on in Israel?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovedubstep)
    After Israel stole Arab land.
    Really? I could have swore Israeli people were around in the Levant region at the time of Philistines and Canaanites (neither of them are Arab at all) and both of which don't exist today meaning Israelis are the "permanent" people of that land. It was only after being invaded and dispersed by various European Christians and Muslim Arab that others came to exist there largely. The Arabs you see in "Palestine" are leftover squatters from past invasions. In fact that land has links to Jews (largely synonymous with Israel) before Islam even came about. In fact a lot of Palestinians are actually Jordanian (also a relatively new state).

    They have no real history and it is not their land to have stolen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axes)
    I never said that, though I guessed in advance you would resort to personal attacks rather than factual arguments. I simply said that prior to 1947 no Arab was evicted. In fact, I was answering this sentence of yours:




    Which insinuated that the Jews simply immigrated and started getting violent. That was not the case during decades of immigration, despite countless Arab attacks. The actuall displacement you speak of occured 60 years after immigration began, during a war for survival in which both sides commited ethnic cleansing. The 1 million Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world were re-settled while the Palestinians were kept by the Arab brethren in camps, to be used as political tools for 60 years.

    This is how the Palestinian refugee tragedy occured. A little different than "Murderous zionist monsters came with their laser beams and raped their way through innocent Palestine". Now you get the difference between hyperbolic propagandistic oversimplification and history?
    Honestly have no idea why you Stalin, Borismor etc even bother with these mongoloids. They seem to believe history began at a point which suits their retarded "Jews = root of all evil" rhetoric. The sad thing is that people can spout horrible nonsense like "lol israle is fkn terrorists opress ancient palestine ppl" and get +7. The way they bang on about the evils of Israel and Jews... Have they ever spared a thought for the black people in Darfur who suffer at the hands of the Arabs?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Its kinda normal for Israel to spy like mad...

    After all, they are freaking paranoid.

    BTW the discussion on Israel/Palestine conflict. Isn't there a dedicated thread for that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    It may have claimed ownership, but it still ruled over a large part of the Indian subcontinent and thus it ruled India.


    i was replying to your comment:
    Originally Posted by ilovedubstep
    Don't be stupid. It wasn't our land really. Just like India was never really our land.

    ..........
    As for India, it was owned by the East India Company until it got itself into a spot of bother and vested its powers in Victoria. So, yes, India was British.


    Britain tried to rule India, they did succeed partially by ruling large areas of land although not the whole Indian subcontinent however there rule was short-lived compared to Indian dynasties that ruled long before.

    Britain or its counterpart the East India Company never 'owned' India.
    If they did they wouldn't have had widespread rebellions.
    India was owned - is owned by INDIANS.
    The word OWNED connotates much more than RULED.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is there to spy on anyway, Egypt obeys everything Israel demands already
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maria11)
    i was replying to your comment:
    Originally Posted by ilovedubstep
    Don't be stupid. It wasn't our land really. Just like India was never really our land.

    ..........
    As for India, it was owned by the East India Company until it got itself into a spot of bother and vested its powers in Victoria. So, yes, India was British.


    Britain tried to rule India, they did succeed partially by ruling large areas of land although not the whole Indian subcontinent however there rule was short-lived compared to Indian dynasties that ruled long before.

    Britain or its counterpart the East India Company never 'owned' India.
    If they did they wouldn't have had widespread rebellions.
    India was owned - is owned by INDIANS.
    The word OWNED connotates much more than RULED.
    The British Raj was ruled and belonged to the United Kingdom; whether there were rebellions is irrelevant. As soon as a piece of land is under direct rule, it therefore belongs to whoever's ruling it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovely88)
    Speaking the truth!!!
    It's really funny, you manage to find posts which you agree with and write stuff like this but when I call you up on using inaccurate sources, anti-Semitic sources, when you get caught out lying (and then saying you don't remember doing something and then doing exactly what you claimed you didn't) and where your make historical mistakes (more than once) - you don't respond. What an odd coincidence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    The British Raj was ruled and belonged to the United Kingdom; whether there were rebellions is irrelevant. As soon as a piece of land is under direct rule, it therefore belongs to whoever's ruling it.
    Nevertheless India never did belong to Britain,
    Britain acquired it through means highly unpopular with the indian populace,
    Subsequently Britain was forced to let go of India
    Thus proving India NEVER really belonged to Britain,
    if it did it would still be in British hands today.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maria11)
    Nevertheless India never did belong to Britain,
    Britain acquired it through means highly unpopular with the indian populace,
    Subsequently Britain was forced to let go of India
    Thus proving India NEVER really belonged to Britain,
    if it did it would still be in British hands today.
    How it acquired it is irrelevant. The fact that it had direct rule over the subcontinent proves that it belonged to Britain.

    You sound like some butt-hurt Indian who resents everything British, then again, by all means whine - it just adds to the amusement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Dirty isrealis...am I suprised...NO!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nazirard)
    Oh look it's the anti-semite card even though I said nothing to suggest snti-semitism. And if you had any knowledge of what's going on in Israel then you would know how much of a fool you sound agreeing with Stalin.:rolleyes:
    Democracy crossed out the anti-Semite seeing as you (like other anti-Zionists) play the "anti-semite" card quite often yourselves.
    Next time, make sure you know what youre talking about, youre embarassing yourself
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nazirard)
    First of all the Palestinians were promised that land from the British and then came the Jewish settlers who claim the land because of religious reasons.
    Ever heard of the Balfour Decleration? Also when did the British promise the Arabs (there was no Palestinian Sovereign Nationalist Identity until years later) land before the 40s?
    And what about post 1947? When Israel just decide to force Palestinians out of their homes.
    That's debatable,conveniantly you left out the forced exodus of over 800,000 Jews from Arab countries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nazirard)
    None of the Zionists recognise the Palestinians as humans with homes.
    I am a Zionist and I recognise Palestinians as humans. The difference between me and you is that whereas you debate about rights and wrongs, I couldn't give a **** when Palestinians are dying and living in terrible conditions.
    I care more about the welfare of Palestinians which is why I often go to Israel and take part in volenteer work to help Palestinian families and communities as well as donating money to charities to support them. I support peace in the middle east and I hope there will be a peaceful Palestinian state within my lifetime.

    So other than angrily ranting at a keyboard behind a computer desk, What have you done to help the Palestinian people? If anyone doesn't recognise the Palestinians as human individuals it is yourself, as you constantly refer to them as a homogenous group, who's identity is an "other", an underdog group in binary opposition to the "evil" Israel
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    How it acquired it is irrelevant. The fact that it had direct rule over the subcontinent proves that it belonged to Britain.

    You sound like some butt-hurt Indian who resents everything British, then again, by all means whine - it just adds to the amusement.
    The fact is Britain tried to acquire India permeneantly.
    They Failed.
    For your information im not Indian.

    You on the otherhand sound like a bigoted Brit still living in the 19th-20th Century.

    "Carry on whining.
    It adds to the amusement."
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: December 22, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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