Arabs in the Israeli Army - Page 12




 
--
 
November 27th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
As far as not caving in to terrorism goes you are right but if that had been done right from the start there would be no Israel, they are a nation born of terrorism and it is somewhat hypocritical of them to be crying about it now, seems that you really do reap what you sew.
I strongly disagree on that. I proved that with dates who started it all. The Israelis then started to defend themselves and when that didn't work they started with attacks. Remember that the first attacks came on Jews who were praying not on Jews who owned Arab (the word Palestinian was rarely used then) land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The unfortunate thing is some guy has come here to post about Arabs in the Israeli army and all he has received is 11 pages of totally unrelated bitching it is really a shame we can not seem to stay on a topic.
You're right. Think I'm gonna make a new thread where we can go on. Just have to find a "right" title.
November 27th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
You have no idea how much I would like to have avoided this thread but you have made it impossible... What countries have the Palestinians asked to convert to Sharia law?

As far as not caving in to terrorism goes you are right but if that had been done right from the start there would be no Israel, they are a nation born of terrorism and it is somewhat hypocritical of them to be crying about it now, seems that you really do reap what you sew.

The unfortunate thing is some guy has come here to post about Arabs in the Israeli army and all he has received is 11 pages of totally unrelated bitching it is really a shame we can not seem to stay on a topic.
I should have been more clear; I was talking about the Islamic countries that DO have Sharia law. The fact that NATO helped Lybia and it turns out to want Sharia law, does very ill reputation for all other Islamic dominant countries.

I was 100% critisizing other countries that claim Israel should not be a Jewish state, but they want western countries to recognize that they will rule by Sharia law.

My bad for not being clear, I should've thought more on that.

On the fact of terrorism created Israel, you may be right, but what I said still stands. Also, just because one used terrorism doesn't mean the other should stoop to that level. If this was so, then U.S, U.K, and other victim countries of terrorism would do the same thing. It gives no more say for the Palestinians just because Israel was created out of "terrorism". The definition of terrorism usually means purposely attacking non-combatants. Due to the nature of the Jewish "terrorist", I have a hard time comparing them with the terorist of Hamas and other Islamic groups; they go far beyond what Jewish terrorists did.

I mean seriously? Fly a plane into 2 buildings, killing 3K+ people simply because you hate U.S? I don't see how you will gain love and respect like that; this is why citizens have a hard time supporting Islamic groups (including Palestine).
November 27th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
No, I wouldn't say that, but it is certainly measured in degrees. It appears that it only becomes subjective when people wish to avoid the unpleasant truth. When it's all said and done morality is no more than knowing the difference between right and wrong, and adhering to it as best you can. Zionists have made no attempt to do the right thing from day one.

You see MontyB, those of us who have an interest in the subject, all have our limit as to to how much rubbish and blatant propaganda we can just ignore,... and by your own admission, that does on occasion include yourself. Apparently I just have a lower tolerance for bullsh!t than you do. We all have our limits,...

It's hardly a bad thing if it brings even the smallest truth to bear.

My point being that the original post was nothing less than a very thinly disguised attempt at Zionist propaganda.


No, morality really is subjective. What is right to you may not be right to others. Standards of morality is what the majority agree on as a whole. Inidividual morality do exist and it don't always have to do with avoiding the truth.

As for what Monty said; he misunderstood or I misrepresented what I was saying. That is the only reason he said anything, which I corrected in the post above this.

As for who started this "11 pages of bitching", it was you Seno, with your complete rubbish statements starting from the very 2nd post. Calling them "turncoats" and the action "despicable", you can say that for many different nationalities.

You literally turned this thread into a pile of garbage. All the stuff we are talking about is completely irrelevant to the thread anyways.
--
November 27th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
No, morality really is subjective. What is right to you may not be right to others. Standards of morality is what the majority agree on as a whole. Inidividual morality do exist and it don't always have to do with avoiding the truth.
That's probably the worst attempted copout in this thread. As I said morality is knowing the difference between right and wrong. I know it does not suit your argument, because you know you supporting the side of wrong and I'm sure you are fully aware of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
As for what Monty said; he misunderstood or I misinterpreted what I was saying. That is the only reason he said anything, which I corrected in the post above this.
I'll give him the chance to answer that, but again I'd say it's a cop out. Like every time the Israelis are caught out, they are always "misunderstood" or it was an "accident", it's never their fault. It seems to have rubbed off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
As for who started this "11 pages of bitching", it was you Seno, with your complete rubbish statements starting from the very 2nd post. Calling them "turncoats" and the action "despicable", you can say that for many different nationalities.
I seem th remember a man in American history called Benedict Arnold, I bet you don't think that he was a turncoat either? What about Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and Iva Toguri,.... not traitors either I suppose? You apply different terminology to turncoats when it does not suit your argument, and might even be considered laughable, if it were not so damned pathetic.
November 27th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Wow! Again a distortion of a fact. Here's the REAL quote:
"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs." Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937). Look here.
Well I suppose this is a distortion too.
Quote:
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
-- David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
It's a great pity for your argument that this is so well documented, and based on this I would also say that my first quote was also probably correct as it is in line with the above quote. I'd say that it's far more likely that the israelis have attempted to deny it by suddenly producing this alleged "letter"
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Another distortion of the facts. It's one of those questions you never answered.
Liar! So you imply that the Btitish illegally attacked the Zionists? All sources have been posted, and the palestinians were promised a homeland in 1915 and sources have been posted. the best you have done is repetitious denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
A small but important correction, he was not talking about the Palestinians, he was talking about the Arabs. The Arabs were promised a country, not the Palestinians. So, again you are distorting the facts.
You know as well as I do that the land in question was to be a Pan Arab state including the Palestinians. No mention was made of a Jewish inclusion.
Quote:
Read my reply above?
I did and showed it to be a lie. Now what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Show me where the word "native" is used in any of these UN tresolutions:
UN General Assembly Resolution 181
UN General Assembly Resolution 273
Like usual you are distorting the facts.
other than which the fact that one specific word was not used has no bearing upon the intent of the conditions. Like the condition in Article 11
"
Article 11 reads:
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.What happened to that? instead, Israel deliberately imposed conditions that made it impossible for refugees to return. Like having no claim on all previous possessions. ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
So Human Rights Watch and the New York Times are Israeli propagandists?
Human right watch supports the Palestinians, and the New York Times, is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Don't you know who he is? This is the Jewish newspaper owner at present under investigation for other criminal activities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
That's just your opinion, I have another one.
Your past history being what it is, i wouldn't boast about that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
This is a good one. Israel does not endanger their own population, Hamas does.
Neither does Hamas, they merely do as they were elected to do. Warfare endangers the population at any time and israel are committed to keep waging war. Even in the ceasefires they have an ongoing campaign of harassment and provocation of the Palestinian population

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Well, your view of global terrorism is totally wrong. Remember the questions I asked about that? Up until today you didn't answer them.
I have answered everything, it's just that you deny the facts, and try approaching the questions from a different angle hoping to get a different answer. but facts are facts and the answers will always be the same, so I ignore them
November 27th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
That's probably the worst attempted copout in this thread. As I said morality is knowing the difference between right and wrong. I know it does not suit your argument, because you know you supporting the side of wrong and I'm sure you are fully aware of it.

I'll give him the chance to answer that, but again I'd say it's a cop out. Like every time the Israelis are caught out, they are always "misunderstood" or it was an "accident", it's never their fault. It seems to have rubbed off.

I seem th remember a man in American history called Benedict Arnold, I bet you don't think that he was a turncoat either? What about Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and Iva Toguri,.... not traitors either I suppose? You apply different terminology to turncoats when it does not suit your argument, and might even be considered laughable, if it were not so damned pathetic.

I know what morality means; what you said do not counter what I said. Who the heck defines right from wrong? People, am I incorrect? However, right and wrong are ideals, subject to the individual and/or group that agrees with it. Therefore, morality is completely debatable except in much more obvious cases.

No, it is not just the turncoat part you said that I was talking about. You said it was "despicable". You used both in the same statement, which makes it debatable. You also said they were throwing away their morals Who are you to tell them they are despicable for deciding to side for one side over the other? The only way I would see it as a despicable action is if they went traitor for selfish reasons or unethical reasons.

Should someone blindly follow a leader to their doom because being traitor is despicable? I don't think so.
November 28th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
I know what morality means; what you said do not counter what I said. Who the heck defines right from wrong? People, am I incorrect?
Yes!, you are wrong, and obviously you have no idea of what morality is. By your reckoning that would mean that because a criminal sees nothing wrong in his actions, they are morally correct?? C'mon stop making excuses it's an insult to human intelligence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
No, it is not just the turncoat part you said that I was talking about. You said it was "despicable".
Ahhh,... so you've been misunderstood again?...
It is certainly despicable in the case we are talking about because these turncoats are giving aid to a regime that has been stealing from, harassing, beating, murdering and generally treating their own people like animals for 60 years. Worse than the half Jews who supported the Nazis. That's not despicable?

You can't have it both ways. You have a conveniently short memory when it suits you, it's time you started thinking a little.
November 28th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Yes!, you are wrong, and obviously you have no idea of what morality is. By your reckoning that would mean that because a criminal sees nothing wrong in his actions, they are morally correct?? C'mon stop making excuses it's an insult to human intelligence.

Ahhh,... so you've been misunderstood again?...
It is certainly despicable in the case we are talking about because these turncoats are giving aid to a regime that has been stealing from, harassing, beating, murdering and generally treating their own people like animals for 60 years. Worse than the half Jews who supported the Nazis. That's not despicable?

You can't have it both ways. You have a conveniently short memory when it suits you, it's time you started thinking a little.
Please read my whole statement again.... I said morality is subjective, but there are standards placed, which is what the majority of people will agree is moral or immoral. By my "reckoning", the majority set what is moral therefore in your theoretical situation, is is morally incorrect. However, he can still believe he is morally correct, but that just means he is very blind to what he did lol.


Whether it is despicable to me would depend on the situation at hand. Comparing these turncoats to the half-Jewish Nazi turncoats is quite odd. Kind of like people comparing Bush to Hitler, simply because he is a "war monger". I don't see Israeli crimes comparable to Hitler who is responsible for the deaths of 70+ million people (not including some of Soviet's casulties because they persecuted their own people).

No, I can see the reasoning for which they choose to side with the Israelis. Why chooise to side with those that anger the communities. Remember, it is Hamas that screws things up for Palestinian people. Why choose the side who purposely kills civillians, not just in their country, but in other countries.


Tell me, how is removal of Israel "moral". It gained its independence, it should not have it taken away simply because of a mistake in the past (especially since it been here for quite some time). We all agree that Palestine should be a state, what we disagree with is why it should be and the fact that you want Israel to be removed from the "Palestinian" lands. Removal of Israel is too late, it is there; removing it could have potential negative effects.
November 28th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
Please read my whole statement again.... I said morality is subjective, but there are standards placed, which is what the majority of people will agree is moral or immoral. By my "reckoning", the majority set what is moral therefore in your theoretical situation, is is morally incorrect. However, he can still believe he is morally correct, but that just means he is very blind to what he did lol.
As you are in this situation and the israelis in regard to the Palestinians. You just shot down your own argument. Thank you..

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
Whether it is despicable to me would depend on the situation at hand. Comparing these turncoats to the half-Jewish Nazi turncoats is quite odd. Kind of like people comparing Bush to Hitler, simply because he is a "war monger". I don't see Israeli crimes comparable to Hitler who is responsible for the deaths of 70+ million people (not including some of Soviet's casulties because they persecuted their own people).
Hitler, where did I say Hitler?? I said about the jews and half jews that followed Hitler,... that's how you sink yourself so quickly, you read what you want to see instead of what is actually written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
No, I can see the reasoning for which they choose to side with the Israelis. Why chooise to side with those that anger the communities.
Of course you can, just like you understand the half Jews who willingly fought for the nazis and Major Nidal Malik Hasan who recently shot how many US Servicemen? You like they, have no morals so it's hardly a consideration for you. Your "morality" changes to suit your purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
Tell me, how is removal of Israel "moral". It gained its independence, it should not have it taken away simply because of a mistake in the past
Of course it's moral, as it is moral to correct any wrong, what is immoral, is not correcting a mistake. Your personal view is all very convenient if you are an Israeli. "Lets just let it slide",... like I suppose we should have allowed Saddam to keep talking shite and generally pissing people about. You conveniently forget, that nowhere in the UN constitution does it give them (or anyone else) the right to just give someone's country to another party, much less a people who have nothing more in common than merely being of the one religion.
November 28th, 2011  
AnnaLeland
 
thanks so much
 


Similar Topics
How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
Tom Gross on the forgotten Rachels
US Army bans use of privately bought armor
The First Ethnic Chief Of The Indian Army
US Army recruited an autistic teenager as Cav Scout