How Israel marginalizes its Arab citizens and beds terrorists (2 articles) Watch

Reformed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by salimyasin10)
1) are you sure the votes from hamas arent corrupt because hamas are very dodgy.
2) we wouldnt know what muhammad would do, but considering if that tech was there, than the enemy would most likely have that to fight with, so there would not be a problem fighting with guns as that would be the normal weapon to fight with if the tech was up to date. Otherwise, what would be the point of using swords against tanks and nuclear missiles.
1. difficult to say but the fact a terrorist group rose to power without much obstruction form the palestinian people is concerning.

2. presumbaly if he were an actual prophet he would eb invicnible against even tanks and nukes?
0
reply
salimyasin10
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
1)what could the paletianians do? they are practicallt powerless.

2)Hes human, not a God.
(Original post by Reformed)
1. difficult to say but the fact a terrorist group rose to power without much obstruction form the palestinian people is concerning.

2. presumbaly if he were an actual prophet he would eb invicnible against even tanks and nukes?
0
reply
Reformed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by salimyasin10)
1)what could the paletianians do? they are practicallt powerless.

2)Hes human, not a God.
1. clearly empowering a terrorist group to represent them and activly attack israelis, was the worst idea. it has ratcheted up the response against palestinians to the extent you now refer
2. he was regarded a a prophet by his followers, with the ability to 'split the moon' A tank should have given him no issue
0
reply
salimyasin10
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
1) well that was their mistake, i cant change anything about that.
2) like i said he was human, the splitting was a miracle by Allah, just like him visiting masjid al-aqsa in isra wa miraaj. Also, a tank would give him issues as he was able to get wounded in the battles he fought in. But even if muhammad was invincible (which he isnt) its not only him fighting, his companions also fight and they are humans too.
(Original post by Reformed)
1. clearly empowering a terrorist group to represent them and activly attack israelis, was the worst idea. it has ratcheted up the response against palestinians to the extent you now refer
2. he was regarded a a prophet by his followers, with the ability to 'split the moon' A tank should have given him no issue
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Reformed)
1. difficult to say but the fact a terrorist group rose to power without much obstruction form the palestinian people is concerning.
Are you being intentionally dense with that risible statement?
2. presumbaly if he were an actual prophet he would eb invicnible against even tanks and nukes?
Jesus😂
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#66
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by salimyasin10)
Hamas are a corrupt group, and most Palestinians dont support them, thats why there is a split between the west bank and gaza.

Israel may restrict supplies to stop weapons coming in, but what would they stop food, also israel do not need to get involved with palestine, as they have become 2 different countries. Yet israel purposefully restricts food supplies to starve them, and practically besiege them and take land form them, you can ask palestinians who lost their land in the west bank, furthermore in west bank they steal the water supplies and electricity to power their settlements, yet did Muhammad do anything like this.


Palestine have a right to defend themselves and when a few stupid people throw a bottle rocket and kill 2 people in israel, the Israelis take it as a war declaration and believe they have the right to send actual rockets into Palestine killing a numerous amount of people.


Also when Muhammad fought wars it was rarely to seize control of land, let me give you examples.

1)Badr- did not seize any land
2)Uhud- same
3)ahzaab- fought in madinah
4) mutaa- fought as a messenger was killed, which meant a decleration of war and was not fought to seize land.
5)tabuk-also not fought to seize land.

Of course there were some wars that were fought to seize land, but most of them were fought in retaliation, however casualties were limited in all of the wars, yet protests in Palestine amount more casualties than the wars Muhammad fought. But the assumptions wars were only fought to seize land is completely wrong.
As a point of contention since next to no Palestinians support the regime in the West Bank because it is infamously corrupt, ineffective and weak who do you propose they support?
Hamas might not be overly popular but it still outstrips the thieves in the West Bank ... who will soon lose their jobs when merkava tanks come rolling in to fully annex it anyway.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How has 2019 been so far?

Amazing!!! (38)
5.76%
Fairly positive (216)
32.73%
Just another year... (260)
39.39%
Is it 2020 yet? (146)
22.12%

Watched Threads

View All