BF2S Forums Israel and Palestine

dayarath wrote:

but none of which compare to taking bullets for a cause.

Taking bullets and achieving something are often two different things.

Did Ghandi 'take any bullets'?

Did Tom Hurndall really achieve anything by 'taking a bullet'?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-22 14:57:15)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not really, the gameplan is to force action through the UN, or wait until the US has collapsed as a military or economic force.
In the long run Israel won't be there, its just a question of time.

So your goal is the entire destruction of Israel. Did your grandparents serve in the Nordland division in WWII by chance?

Dilbert_X wrote:

JG wrote:

So your goal is the entire destruction of Israel.

Its not my goal, the way things are progressing its more than likely though.

It could be averted if the Israelis changed their plan and made peace the objective rather than measuring success in terms of square metres stolen. Their opportunity is slipping away rapidly, which is their problem more than mine.

Did your grandparents serve in the Nordland division in WWII by chance?

No, British Army. My grandfather was evacuated at Dunkirk and went back through Salerno via North Africa.

Or the Palestinians can face reality and give up and fold their nation into Israel in exchange for full citizenship. Of course, that's the peaceful path and wouldn't require any outside intervention so bollocks to that amirite?

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Or the Palestinians can face reality and give up and fold their nation into Israel in exchange for full citizenship. Of course, that's the peaceful path and wouldn't require any outside intervention so bollocks to that amirite?

Thats absolutely the last thing the Israelis want, they want the land but not the people - isn't that the definition of ethnic cleansing?

They know the muslims would outbreed them, and they don't want impure blood in their pure aryan jewish state.

They aren't performing ethnic cleansing you twit.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I already said it twice. You ignored me because it was more logical than your own arguments.

said what twice?

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They aren't performing ethnic cleansing you twit.

You really should read up on Israeli history and their current actions.

You can insult me all you like, debating with someone who has no knowledge of history or current events is as futile as knocking heads with lowing.

Much better to have a wholly biased opinion and ignore the other side. That makes for a sound argument.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Much better to have a wholly biased opinion and ignore the other side. That makes for a sound argument.

This from a man who called Said a crybaby.

Was clearing the Germans out of France, Russia etc 'ethnic cleansing'?

Or was ethnic cleansing what the Germans did to Europe and Russia?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-22 16:12:12)

good fences make good neighbors

dayarath wrote:

Well I suppose the wall means that the Israelis aren't going beyond that, good news right?

Let the thread die.

dayarath wrote:

Well I suppose the wall means that the Israelis aren't going beyond that, good news right?

That's the beautiful part. They can creep the walls forward!

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They aren't performing ethnic cleansing you twit.

You really should read up on Israeli history and their current actions.

You can insult me all you like, debating with someone who has no knowledge of history or current events is as futile as knocking heads with lowing.

Wouldn't be futile if you brought an argument that makes sense. You admit that '67 borders for Israel will not do anything for peace in the ME. YOu know the end result for the Islamic nations is the destruction of Israel, yet you insist Israel should relent for the sake of peace.

I don't care about Israel or Palestine but I am coherent enough with the world around me to know that an Israel that relaxes and compromises along with an ally that stops supporting it, will not end in peace with Israel standing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

You admit that '67 borders for Israel will not do anything for peace in the ME

You're confusing me with someone else, I've already explained this multiple times.

'67 Borders are the best compromise option at this time and the best chance for long term peace.
That doesn't mean its guaranteed any more than anything else would be.

Or Israel can hold out for biblical Israel and risk being annihilated.
It really is that dumb, going all out to grab almost barren land when they have plenty of that within their own borders.

You keep ignoring the fact that compromise is on the table for Israel only. No one else is willing to compromise. Also consider what would happen  if Israel and the Palestinians "compromised" and found peace. THe Palestinians would inherit another enemy, Islamic radicals and all nations that are not interested in compromise with Israel.

Let me guess, this is where you think the UN would intervene with a bombardment of lethal resolutions, right? The cold reality is, the only way there will be peace in the ME ( and I doubt even then) is with the destruction of Israel. and you can thank peace loving Islam for that.

By the way, do you really think Israel will be "annihilated" in any attack? What precedent would you use to form that opinion. In the event of another war, you would do well to put your money on Israel. THere is no political correctness for them in dealing with those that want to destroy it. The gloves and the politics will most definitely be left behind.

Last edited by lowing (2011-02-23 00:14:53)