Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

How Islamists make sure Arab kids die, so they can kill more innocent Israelis!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by roger 62 View Post
    That's the problem with such sweeping statements - Palestinians could, and do, say exactly the same thing. If both sides adopt this 'kill one iof mine and I'll kill 50 of yours' approach then there is no end in sight, no hope for any of them.

    I really don't think this black & white approach from you (and others) helps the debate or points the way to any solution.

    pirateship1982

    "Ender's Game - like Starship Troopers, had some excellent military philosophy. When asked why he kept kicking the bully after knocking him down Ender responds that knocking the bully down won the first fight, the bully would simply return with more friends the next time, so he finished him off and won all the fights right there."

    That all depends on who the bully is doesn't it? I suspect we'll disagree who the bully is in this situation.
    And how many instances can you recall where Israel stood back and arbitrarily lobbed missiles into Gaza - without being provoked beyond endurance by the terrorists ??

    Can you name even one instance where Israel initiated the conflict without first giving warning after warning that the terrorist acts would not be tolerated much longer ??

    It's very clear who the "bad guy" is in this situation.

    You may not like Israel's solution to the problem -- I do like it -- but that isn't the point. The point is simply that Hamas brought this all on themselves - and they were certainly warned of the consequences.
    I like Dogs far better than most People

    As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

    BoRG

    Comment


    • #47
      You must have remarkable insight if you can separate the various actions from the reactions.

      It seems that in US media Hamas and Fatah before it were always 'attacking' and Irael was always 'responding'. The true picture is much more murky than that.

      From a Palestinian POV the occupation of the country is seen as the first aggression everything since then has been reaction and counter reaction.

      Presumably if another country (let's say Britain) occupied your lands, coralled you in with fences and walls, controlled you access to basic neccessities and chose to punish you by bombing power stations etc just because some bloke a mile up the road took pot shots at them you'd be a 'patriot' and fight back?

      No-one would blame you if you did.

      I really don't see how some 'terrorism' can be condemned out of hand while other 'terrorism' (albeit by a state) is applauded.
      Stay ignorant, watch FOX.

      http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03..._Oct03_rpt.pdf

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by roger 62 View Post
        You must have remarkable insight if you can separate the various actions from the reactions.

        It seems that in US media Hamas and Fatah before it were always 'attacking' and Irael was always 'responding'. The true picture is much more murky than that.

        From a Palestinian POV the occupation of the country is seen as the first aggression everything since then has been reaction and counter reaction.

        Presumably if another country (let's say Britain) occupied your lands, coralled you in with fences and walls, controlled you access to basic neccessities and chose to punish you by bombing power stations etc just because some bloke a mile up the road took pot shots at them you'd be a 'patriot' and fight back?

        No-one would blame you if you did.

        I really don't see how some 'terrorism' can be condemned out of hand while other 'terrorism' (albeit by a state) is applauded.
        It's easy to separate the various actions and reactions -- simply start in 1947 - 48 !!

        Palestinians were given options - viable ones - ones that gave them citizenship in a country being formed out of unclaimed lands administered by the British. They choose not to participate. They subsequently attacked the new little country and got their butts kicked - by immigrants and concentration camp survivors - nd a few native born folks as well.

        And that's how it started. Since that time, Israel has only defended itself against the Arab / Palestinian / Muslim terrorists.

        Now - please point out where my history recollection is wrong.
        I like Dogs far better than most People

        As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

        BoRG

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by roger 62 View Post
          You must have remarkable insight if you can separate the various actions from the reactions.

          It seems that in US media Hamas and Fatah before it were always 'attacking' and Irael was always 'responding'. The true picture is much more murky than that.

          From a Palestinian POV the occupation of the country is seen as the first aggression everything since then has been reaction and counter reaction.

          Presumably if another country (let's say Britain) occupied your lands, coralled you in with fences and walls, controlled you access to basic neccessities and chose to punish you by bombing power stations etc just because some bloke a mile up the road took pot shots at them you'd be a 'patriot' and fight back?

          No-one would blame you if you did.

          I really don't see how some 'terrorism' can be condemned out of hand while other 'terrorism' (albeit by a state) is applauded.
          Roger...

          Presumably if another country (let's say Britain) occupied your lands, coralled you in with fences and walls

          ...is the problem in your position, because a look at the last 3000 years in the near east clearly shows that those we now call Palestinians have never owned the land of Palestine, they have never claimed the land of Palestine until very recently, they have never risen to statehood as a people previously and until recently they have never even claimed to be a recognisable separate people! Because of this they have no rights at all to the land of Palestine, except those under general international law, which even the Arab nations agree to.

          The laws state that a group of people may form a state anywhere, BUT only if it does not remove the human rights, rights of self determination or the membership of a presently existing nation state, from any other group of people.

          Certainly they may fight a war and try and steal it by force, but they should then expect the consequences to be heavy indeed.

          Any way you look at it, the Palestinians lost their chance for statehood in 1947, purely because of their hatred for the Jewish people. If they had followed the Jewish peoples example and worked to create a nation state in 1947, things would be different for them. As they chose not to, they must now accept the concequences for their actions.

          Gaz

          Comment


          • #50
            Any way you look at it, the Palestinians lost their chance for statehood in 1947, purely because of their hatred for the Jewish people. If they had followed the Jewish peoples example and worked to create a nation state in 1947, things would be different for them. As they chose not to, they must now accept the concequences for their actions
            ..thats a very black and white way to veiw it Gaz but....fair enough..!

            Comment


            • #51
              trying to turn back the clock

              In 1947 the Palestinians would have had a connected state whereas, per the map provided elsewhere by Gaz, the Jews would have occupied disconnected enclaves. That was the one best chance the Palestinians had to establish a viable state.

              Every conflict since has left the Palestinians worse off yet they keep trying the same solution - kill more people. No matter how much sympathy I have for the Palestinian people, I have no respect whatsoever for their so-called 'leaders'. They are wedded to a losing militant strategy and the situation for their people will never improve until they find some way to coexist.
              Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

              Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
                Every conflict since has left the Palestinians worse off yet they keep trying the same solution - kill more people.
                I've heard is said that the definition of insanity, and stupidity, is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

                Roger 62
                From a Palestinian POV the occupation of the country is seen as the first aggression everything since then has been reaction and counter reaction.

                Far as I'm concerned as long as they resort to terror tactics, I couldn't give a rat's @$$ what their original grievance is. We'll give them no consideration until they learn to behave themselves.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                  Roger...

                  Presumably if another country (let's say Britain) occupied your lands, coralled you in with fences and walls

                  ...is the problem in your position, because a look at the last 3000 years in the near east clearly shows that those we now call Palestinians have never owned the land of Palestine, they have never claimed the land of Palestine until very recently, they have never risen to statehood as a people previously and until recently they have never even claimed to be a recognisable separate people! Because of this they have no rights at all to the land of Palestine, except those under general international law, which even the Arab nations agree to.
                  Gaz....that's a load of rubbish and it is rubbish you mentioned before. To claim that the 'Palestinians' never declared for a 'Palestinian State' prior to the formation of Israel, ignores the fact that the Arab people, including those living in Palestine, declared for an 'Arab state' which included Palestine during the Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire. And it was expressly stated thus first of all in the Damascus Proclamation of 1914:

                  The document declared that the Arabs would revolt in alliance with Great Britain in return for recognition of Arab independence in an area running from the 37th parallel near the Taurus Mountains on the southern border of Turkey, to be bounded in the east by Persia and the Persian Gulf, in the west by the Mediterranean Sea and in the south by the Arabian Sea.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein...Correspondence

                  This was accepted by the British during an exchange of letters between the Sharif of Mecca and the British High Commissioner in Egypt:

                  The districts of Mersin and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed delimitation. Subject to that modification, and without prejudice to the treaties concluded between us and certain Arab Chiefs, we accept that delimitation. As for the regions lying within the proposed frontiers, in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to interests of her ally France, I am authorized to give you the following pledges on behalf of the Government of Great Britain, and to reply as follows to your note: That subject to the modifications stated above, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sharif of Mecca.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein...Correspondence

                  The Arab revolt which followed in 1916 was pursued with the direct goal of ending Turkish rule over the Arab tribes in favour of indigenous Arab rulership in the lands occupied by Arabs - which included Palestine.
                  To make the claim that the Arabs in Palestine never explicity called for a separate Palestinian state and therefore in some manner forfeited their sovereign rights over land they had lived in for centuries is akin to stating that German settlers could start moving into Prussian Poland and the Russian Kaliningrad enclave and declare a new Prussian state, since the Polish and Russian residents in those territories have never explicity called for an independent Polish or Russian Prussian state. The Arabs in Palestine generally saw their 'sovereignty' tied up with something greater than just 'Palestine,' (the same way Poles and Russians in former Prussian territory see their sovereignty tied up in something greater). They saw it in terms of either one large Arab state which included Palestine or in terms of larger tribal affiliations which also included the land of Palestine. Just because you declare sovereignty over a large unit of land, does not mean you relinquish all rights to a smaller piece of land contained therein.

                  Further, even within the confines of the Palesitinian Mandate, the Palestinians had made their position known to the both British and the Zionists regarding Jewish immigration as early as 1920, and continued to do so through the 1930s. It was made clear to the British that the Arabs were opposed to Jewish immigration on the clear principle that Jewish immigration - conducted under British protection - constituted a threat to the sovereign rights of the local Arab population, whether or not they expressed those rights in the prisitine Western legal understanding of sovereignty.

                  Furthermore, since the 'Palestine' of the British Palestinian Mandate was essentially a creation of the British in the first place, why should the local Arab population have defined their concept of sovereignty to conform with a land division artifically established by the British in the first place?

                  Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                  The laws state that a group of people may form a state anywhere, BUT only if it does not remove the human rights, rights of self determination or the membership of a presently existing nation state, from any other group of people.
                  But that is exactly what the British and the Zionists did viz-z-viz the local Arab population in Palestine.

                  Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                  Any way you look at it, the Palestinians lost their chance for statehood in 1947, purely because of their hatred for the Jewish people. If they had followed the Jewish peoples example and worked to create a nation state in 1947, things would be different for them. As they chose not to, they must now accept the concequences for their actions.

                  Gaz
                  The Jewish and Arab communities had coexisted quite peacefully for the better part of 1000 years within the confines of the Palestinian land. What changed this was the appearance of Zionist settlers in the beginning of the 20th Century who were operating on the implicit and explicit assumption that they were going to obtain sovereignty over the land, regardless of the indigenous Arab population. This is the origin of the hostility between the two groups. The Arab hostility was justified and was explicitly predicted by the British themselves after the Balfour declaration. As for the partition, I pointed out before why the Arabs were opposed to it - it was an injudicious partition which granted districts in Palestine to the proposed Jewish state which were overwhelmingly inhabited by Arabs or Bedouins, including the Negev, which was 99% Arab and Bedouin and the Galilee, which was around 80% Arab. It had nothing to do with anti-Semitism, rather anti-Semitism among the Palestinian Arabs orginated from their threatened loss of land. To say that they brought things upon themselves because they refused to submit to a partition which saw themselves giving up sovereign rights to land they had lived in for centuries and in which they comprised the vast majority of the population undermines your argument that the Palestinians had no concept of sovereignty in the first place.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Skoblin -- all the above being recognized - I still believe it is very difficult to discount the Jewish original ownership of the land in question.

                    Granted, the Arabs moved in 'en-mass" and quickly overpopulated the region -- recall that they ( Muslims ) have the right to four wives, if they can afford them, and therefor have many children. It comes as no surprise that they could, very quickly, outnumber the indigenous population.

                    ( I've just read an article written in the last few days that the Islamic Clerics have issued a ruling that now authorizes girls in Saudi Arabia to be married as young as ten years of age - whether they like it or not -- barbaric !!)

                    Where were these "Palestinians" in biblical times ??

                    I like the idea of Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jericho and so many other communities being in the hands of other than Muslims ! I don't like a Mosque being built on the Dome of the Rock - I don't like the restrictions placed by the Muslims on known "Christian and Jewish" holy locations.

                    It doesn't matter what faith anyone happens to be -- or if they have a faith at all -- what matters is that the Muslims elect to be jerks about it all -- and that goes against the grain for me and negates any sympathy I might otherwise feel for their plight.
                    I like Dogs far better than most People

                    As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                    BoRG

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
                      Skoblin -- all the above being recognized - I still believe it is very difficult to discount the Jewish original ownership of the land in question.
                      It can be discounted quite easily by reading the Bible. The Bible states quite clearly the land was originally inhabited by Canaanites, Midianites, Philistines and others, whose male population was generally put to the sword and whose female population was subjected to mass rape by the invading Israelites.

                      As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
                      Deuteronomy 20:10-14
                      Last edited by Skoblin; 17 Jan 09, 12:03.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Skoblin

                        Yes -- The Canaanites, Midianites, Philistines and others were in fact in the general area -- most of them descended from Abraham as it is.



                        Deuteronomy -- I've always liked that one !!
                        Last edited by Kaiser Franz; 08 Feb 09, 14:45.
                        I like Dogs far better than most People

                        As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                        BoRG

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
                          Skoblin

                          Yes -- The Canaanites, Midianites, Philistines and others were in fact in the general area -- most of them descended from Abraham as it is.



                          Deuteronomy -- I've always liked that one !!
                          Showing a map of the land after the Israelite incursion has as little relevance as showing a map of Asia after the Mongol invasions. The point was -as established by Bible - that other people lived in the land prior to the Israelites, contrary to your argument that the Israelites had original ownership of the land.



                          The Philistines, Amroites, Jebusites, Hivites and Canaanites were not "in the general area," they were directly living there. If you like Deuteronomy, than you will enjoy this other reference to the people who originally owned the land before the Jews did.

                          When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
                          Deuteronomy 7:1-2

                          If your argument is that original ownership is established by force of arms, then the Israelites did acquire "original ownership" in 1100BC. And then they lost lost it 450 years later to the Babylonians and the Assyrians....and your point is....?
                          Last edited by Skoblin; 17 Jan 09, 12:57.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Oh I like that little time period right around the time Jesus was born -- while the "Land of the Jews" was under Roman occupation

                            I'd have to consider that as the appropriate time period to establish ownership of the land -- all those that came later are usurpers and should be evicted from the "Holy Land"

                            This would all be a mute point if the "Religion of Peace and Tolerance" weren't such a royal pain in the buttski to the rest of the world.
                            I like Dogs far better than most People

                            As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                            BoRG

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
                              Oh I like that little time period right around the time Jesus was born -- while the "Land of the Jews" was under Roman occupation

                              I'd have to consider that as the appropriate time period to establish ownership of the land -- all those that came later are usurpers and should be evicted from the "Holy Land"

                              This would all be a mute point if the "Religion of Peace and Tolerance" weren't such a royal pain in the buttski to the rest of the world.

                              Franz, surely you realize establishing the time frame for sovereignty over the land of Palestine as being the time of the birth of Christ means that the Italians (as the heirs to the Roman Empire) have legal claim to Palestine, since they had conquered it by force of arms. Similarly, if such a claim works in one case, it should hold in all cases. Thus, the Italians still have a legal claim to France, Spain, Greece and Turkey. And...for that matter....the United States has a dubious standing under international law....what was it at the time of Christ?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
                                This would all be a mute point if the "Religion of Peace and Tolerance" weren't such a royal pain in the buttski to the rest of the world.
                                I am pretty sure Africans, North and South American indians, Asians and Arabs felt the same way about Christianity and its message of peace and brotherhood at various moments in history.....

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • Cheetah772
                                  The Expanse
                                  Cheetah772
                                  Anyone following The Expanse series? I am an avid fan of the books upon which the show is based on. I am so thrilled that Amazon picked up the show from...
                                  Yesterday, 22:34
                                • wolfhnd
                                  Tommy Robinson Arrested
                                  wolfhnd
                                  Hate speech laws and arbitrary enforcement of laws seem to be the norm in Europe now. Are "socialist" countries unavoidably totalitarian?
                                  Yesterday, 20:55
                                • Cosmos
                                  How to post a video
                                  Cosmos
                                  I've worked out how to post a video . Click on A to toggle Advanced Editor . Then in the last box of four on the new top row click the last symbol (Insert...
                                  Yesterday, 18:00
                                Working...
                                X