Jerusalem 'lorry attack' injures 15

You're forgetting this little thing called "the Arab Israeli conflict" a brief overview of which is:

The Arabs control the whole middle east, then the Jews come along and are given some land, but the Arabs hate the Jews so try to take this land by force. They get their arises handed to them and the Jews are able to take some more land as their spoils of war. The Arabs try this a few times over and the same thing happens over and over. Most of the Arabs finally realise they're **** and can't beat Israel so resign themselves to the fact Israel exists. The end.

Wait, sorry, not the end, because you have the paramilitary cells left that seem to think they can somehow force Israel out despite being ***** slapped every few years when they finally get the resources to effectively throw a few rocks and just end up screwing over the people they're allegedly fighting for.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You're forgetting this little thing called "the Arab Israeli conflict" a brief overview of which is:

The Arabs control the whole middle east, then the Jews come along and are given some land, but the Arabs hate the Jews so try to take this land by force. They get their arises handed to them and the Jews are able to take some more land as their spoils of war. The Arabs try this a few times over and the same thing happens over and over. Most of the Arabs finally realise they're **** and can't beat Israel so resign themselves to the fact Israel exists. The end.

Wait, sorry, not the end, because you have the paramilitary cells left that seem to think they can somehow force Israel out despite being ***** slapped every few years when they finally get the resources to effectively throw a few rocks and just end up screwing over the people they're allegedly fighting for.

Posted from TSR Mobile

isn't that something the right would sympathise with? Given the paranoia of immigrants coming over, and statements like "I want my country back!".

I find interesting they find that okay to happen elsewhere, but are worried about it happening to them (even though it won't).

You're forgetting this little thing called "the Arab Israeli conflict" a brief overview of which is:

The Arabs control the whole middle east, then the Jews come along and are given some land, but the Arabs hate the Jews so try to take this land by force. They get their arises handed to them and the Jews are able to take some more land as their spoils of war. The Arabs try this a few times over and the same thing happens over and over. Most of the Arabs finally realise they're **** and can't beat Israel so resign themselves to the fact Israel exists. The end.

Wait, sorry, not the end, because you have the paramilitary cells left that seem to think they can somehow force Israel out despite being ***** slapped every few years when they finally get the resources to effectively throw a few rocks and just end up screwing over the people they're allegedly fighting for.

Posted from TSR Mobile

As clever as this statement is, it's essentially meaningless. Forget the words, think about actions and intentions.

Did these Palestinians deliberately target people they knew were not an immediate threat to them, content with the pain and suffering this would cause? Yes.

Cool story. I'll be here if you ever actually want to discuss serious and nuanced points rather than just churn out pathetically simplistic caricatures.

I've been forbidden from repping you anymore, apparently I do it too often, but +1.



The fact that you're taking one policy position (banning immigration) held by a fringe minority and blanket applying it to "the right" really betrays your ignorance.

isn't that something the right would sympathise with? Given the paranoia of immigrants coming over, and statements like "I want my country back!".

I find interesting they find that okay to happen elsewhere, but are worried about it happening to them (even though it won't).

Isn't that what a lot of people do what they go on their anti left wing rants

It's simplified, sure, but what about it is actually wrong?

It's easy to get arounf: the Jewish claim is thousands of years old, it is their ancestral homeland and they had just faced another genocide attempt, the Israelites are known to have inhabited the Land of Canaan since the second millenium BCE, the Arabs are a mostly common era event, particularly in modern Israel. The Jews aren't the invaders, the Arabs are. Not to mention that the Israelis are much bigger fans of liberal democracy

I can't think of a time I've done it, but I have seen other people do it. It's daft whoever is doing it, either way.

Would you therefore agree with giving back land to native Americans and natives of places like Australia etc?

Just trying to find some consistency.

Agreed.

Although those types tend to be the worst to discuss things with. They just see someone left wing and MUST be aggressive and argue against them. (Vice versa with left wingers with that attitude)

Do you really think this is an effective method of determining legitimacy the of violent acts in conflict? By this logic, we'd have to conclude that it is wrong for air forces to target the opposing side's ground troops unless the latter possess anti-aircraft weaponry, as otherwise they pose no immediate threat to the air forces in question.

There are Arabs in Israel, let's not forget, and the country had an Arab President at one point. Israel is a pluralistic society (Tel Aviv especially is very metropolitan), whereas there are remarkably few Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq... etc etc.

I think the difference is that there are next-to-no Native Americans left, and relatively few Aboriginal Australians. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem aren't exactly lacking for Jews.

It's ridiculous that we should even be in a position to be having this conversation anyway, the idea of segregating borders religiously is abhorrent everywhere else on earth. But the reason we are discussing this isn't the Israelis. There are Arabs in Israel, let's not forget, and the country had an Arab President at one point. Israel is a pluralistic society (Tel Aviv especially is very metropolitan), whereas there are remarkably few Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq... etc etc.

I can be aggressive, but that's just because I really enjoy the argument and the debate. I think people conflate that with "everyone who disagrees with me even slightly is automatically a bad person" sometimes.

Would you therefore agree with giving back land to native Americans and natives of places like Australia etc?

Just trying to find some consistency.

1. Yes, Arab Israelis who are treated like second class citizens and whom the current PM himself effectively incites hatred of ("voting in their droves" ) . The vast majority of these Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinian, and not (Arab-)Israeli.

2. There are around 10,000-40,000 Jews in Iran (estimates vary), a Jewish MP, Chief Rabbi, and dozens of synagogues (in Tehran alone).

3. Who was this Arab President of Israel you speak of?

He's thinking of Majalli Wahabi, but he's not an Arab, he's Druze.

I think the difference is that there are next-to-no Native Americans left, and relatively few Aboriginal Australians. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem aren't exactly lacking for Jews.

It's ridiculous that we should even be in a position to be having this conversation anyway, the idea of segregating borders religiously is abhorrent everywhere else on earth. But the reason we are discussing this isn't the Israelis. There are Arabs in Israel, let's not forget, and the country had an Arab President at one point. Israel is a pluralistic society (Tel Aviv especially is very metropolitan), whereas there are remarkably few Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq... etc etc.