Palestina

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

So wait, what are we argueing about? 

dunno :3 

[F CHARLIE]

So wait, what are we argueing about?

You will have to forgive him. He is touchy about topics dealing with Isreal.

[qazz42]

>Excuse me? mass killings? What war crimes? Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? 

 

oh boy, seems someone had too much blue pill. I bet you huffed some of that dank white phosphorus Israel sent into Gaza.

 

>Also, America gives aid to Israel (and most of the Arab countries for that matter) for a multitude of reasons, but one key reason is that Israel is the only stable government in the entire area, brining some stability, and a safe-haven for US troops.

 

only reason that israel is the only stable government in the area is because the US and other imperial powers overthrew the rest. 1953 Iranian coup, anyone?

 

even if israel was the only stable country on its own, I don't see how that defends my taxes going to them. Why should I have my paycheck stolen from me to go to a country that is already well off anyhow, judging by the sheer amount of nukes and other war machines they own. Furthermore, we give aid to israel to bomb their enemies, and then give aid money to their enemies, IE Palestein, to rebuild? Makes no sense to me.

 

>and a safe-haven for US troops.

 

no, the safe-haven for US troops is here at home. In the US. where they'd actually protect America.

 

 

to quote Bill Clinton: "Who the fuck does [Netanyahu] think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here."

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

oh boy, seems someone had too much blue pill. I bet you huffed some of that dank white phosphorus Israel sent into Gaza.

I guess you missed the part where the Palestinians in Gaza were sending rockets into Israel, or the flyers the IDF (israeli army) dropped into Gaza saying where they were sending the air strike. And i guess you also missed the fact that the terrorists were hiding in hospitals and schools. 

 

only reason that israel is the only stable government in the area is because the US and other imperial powers overthrew the rest. 1953 Iranian coup, anyone?

Israel is the only stable power as its not run by a dictator, and therefore the populous doesn't have an overwhelming desire to rebel.

 

even if israel was the only stable country on its own, I don't see how that defends my taxes going to them. Why should I have my paycheck stolen from me to go to a country that is already well off anyhow, judging by the sheer amount of nukes and other war machines they own. Furthermore, we give aid to israel to bomb their enemies, and then give aid money to their enemies, IE Palestein, to rebuild? Makes no sense to me.

 

no, the safe-haven for US troops is here at home. In the US. where they'd actually protect America.

Yes, lets pretend we live in a bubble. Do i agree with the US getting involved in everyones problems? No. But the fact of the matter is that we do. Without Israel American troops wouldn't have any safe haven. Not to mention mobilizing an army from America to attack the middle east/defend Europe would be a mess; whereas Israel ends up being a permanent-giant aircraft carrier capable of storing and mobilizing troops and air defense. But, why be ready for a war; i'd much rather the US army be on american soil. This way, when a war breaks out i get to watch the bombs destroy by house, and any nearby cities. And lets not forget, that without a foreign presence America would no longer be considered a super-power. 

 

to quote Bill Clinton: "Who the fuck does [Netanyahu] think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here."

Per-Capita, Israel is, actually. 

[qazz42]

>Israel is the only stable power as its not run by a dictator, and therefore the populous doesn't have an overwhelming desire to rebel.

 

once again, because we overthrew the rest. I reference the 1953 coup again. The population rebelled in areas where we put in and proped up dictators

after overthrowing the democractically elected ones because BP was harmed by a simple nationalization of oil.

 

>I guess you missed the part where the Palestinians in Gaza were sending rockets into Israel, or the flyers the IDF (israeli army) dropped into Gaza saying where they were sending the air strike. And i guess you also missed the fact that the terrorists were hiding in hospitals and schools.

 

Hey, I'm trying to kill you. There, jsut warned you, so now it's okay when I do it. America sent flyers into Japan before the nukes, but you won't see me defend the nukes.

 

The rockets sent into israel is justified as conventional warfare. It's a war, rockets get sent. Usually that's the retribution in exchange for israel getting to brutalize and torture and destroy the houses of the palesteinians. It's what the CIA  calls blowback.

 

Terrorists hiding in hospitals and schools is pretty shitty, I'll give you that, but does that give israel the right to broadly white phosphorus in the area, something that is against international law? Absolutely not.

 

I seriously hope you seriously aren't defending the use of chemical weapons. And if you are, don't cry when the terrorists then use the same weapons that israel uses, because it really does set a standard.

 

 

>Yes, lets pretend we live in a bubble

 

what bubble? I'm all for open trade and friendly relations with other countries. That doesn't mean we should have troops in countries we aren't at war with. you're the one in this "let's just go with the status quo" bubble.

 

>But the fact of the matter is that we do.

 

and we shouldnt.

 

>Without Israel American troops wouldn't have any safe haven

 

once again, no, they'd have a safe haven here at home. No troop is safe anywhere in the middle east. They might get bulldozed like Rachel Corrie was

 

>Not to mention mobilizing an army from America to attack the middle east/defend Europe would be a mess

Europe is completely able to defend themselves. They've had that European socialism thing going for them for so long now, that I doubt they need anything from us. The US cannot and should not be the world police. Always with the war, with you people.

 

>But, why be ready for a war; i'd much rather the US army be on american soil

 

oh, if we're attacked, then we'll be absolutely ready to get whoever attacked us. But since we're not being attacked, there's no reason to be in every single god damn country in the world. It overextends our military, wastes billions, if not trillions, of dollars, and will bankrupt us in the long run.

 

or maybe we can just nuke iraq, and make Northrop Grumman and haliburton some more blood money.

 

>This way, when a war breaks out i get to watch the bombs destroy by house, and any nearby cities.

 

such paranoia. No one is going to bomb your house because we moved troops out of areas and brought them back to defend our land. In fact, bringing the troops home will decrease the chance of another attack on us,unless you actually think that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, in which case I recommend you stop taking the blue pill and read the offical 9/11 report which explains how and why we were attacked in very good detail. Blowback, my friend.

 

>to quote Bill Clinton: "Who the fuck does [Netanyahu] think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here."

>Per-Capita, Israel is, actually.

 

wonderful, seems like they don't need that foregin aid then, since they're so strong and independant.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Hey, I'm trying to kill you. There, jsut warned you, so now it's okay when I do it. America sent flyers into Japan before the nukes, but you won't see me defend the nukes.

Israel was targeting the rocket launching facilities. They knew they were inside of hospitals and schools. Hence why they gave several days notice to the populous informing them that they were going to bomb the launch sites. And explain to me why its ok for Palestinians (terrorist palestinians) to launch rockets at Israel, but its not ok for Israel to retaliate? 

 

The rockets sent into israel is justified as conventional warfare. It's a war, rockets get sent. Usually that's the retribution in exchange for israel getting to brutalize and torture and destroy the houses of the palesteinians. It's what the CIA  calls blowback.

Wait wait wait, so its ok for hesbola/palestinian terrorist groups to launch rockets at Israel but not the other way around.......Ok then. 

 

Terrorists hiding in hospitals and schools is pretty shitty, I'll give you that, but does that give israel the right to broadly white phosphorus in the area, something that is against international law? Absolutely not.

 

I seriously hope you seriously aren't defending the use of chemical weapons. And if you are, don't cry when the terrorists then use the same weapons that israel uses, because it really does set a standard.

Because governments have never made questionable moves. I can agree with the use of white phosphorous as much as i agree with America nuking Japan, but does that mean that they're a bunch of murderers? No. Also, white phosphorus has strategic implementations as it will also provide cover for ground troops. But, lets not get ahead of ourselves hear. Theres a HUGE difference between using chemical weapons that terrorists "use/plan/whatever" (biological) vs. chemicals. White phosphorous is a chemical in the same sense that mustard gas or tear gas is a chemical. And i also assume you don't have any issues with the terrorists in Gaza using White phosphorous in their weapons too?

 

what bubble? I'm all for open trade and friendly relations with other countries. That doesn't mean we should have troops in countries we aren't at war with. you're the one in this "let's just go with the status quo" bubble.

once again, no, they'd have a safe haven here at home. No troop is safe anywhere in the middle east. They might get bulldozed like Rachel Corrie was

Theres a big problem with not having troops abroad. First off, without troops abroad America would lose its status as a super-power, which is a huge problem. Not to mention i'd much rather have troops overseas, this way if a war breaks out, it will happen THERE, and NOT here. 

 

Europe is completely able to defend themselves. They've had that European socialism thing going for them for so long now, that I doubt they need anything from us. The US cannot and should not be the world police. Always with the war, with you people.

I agree, America needs to not get involved in everyones problems, but thats not going to happen anytime soon. Not to mention, America wouldn't really be America if it didn't try and help people. 

 

oh, if we're attacked, then we'll be absolutely ready to get whoever attacked us. But since we're not being attacked, there's no reason to be in every single god damn country in the world. It overextends our military, wastes billions, if not trillions, of dollars, and will bankrupt us in the long run.

There are much bigger strains on our budget then the military. But just being in many different countries shows our presence as a super-power and helps keeps peace in the long-run. Pretend you're in elementary school and you wanted money (and were the school bully), would you bully the kid who's big brother is right there to back him up, or find another source of money? 

 

such paranoia. No one is going to bomb your house because we moved troops out of areas and brought them back to defend our land. In fact, bringing the troops home will decrease the chance of another attack on us,unless you actually think that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, in which case I recommend you stop taking the blue pill and read the offical 9/11 report which explains how and why we were attacked in very good detail. Blowback, my friend.

First off, you really must be naive to think that the Arab nations (leaders) don't hate our freedoms. And no, bringing the troops back wouldn't ultimately decrease the chance of an attack. Temporarily it might as there will be a higher concentration of soldiers/weapons; but as time goes on the military would get sized down, and America would end up with a weaker army in a more vulnerable position. 

[qazz42]

>And explain to me why its ok for Palestinians (terrorist palestinians) to launch rockets at Israel, but its not ok for Israel to retaliate?

>Wait wait wait, so its ok for hesbola/palestinian terrorist groups to launch rockets at Israel but not the other way around.......Ok then.

 

you're missing my point. I never mentioned anything about israeli rockets. I was talking about israel using white phosphorus, a chemical weapon who's use is against international law and is a war crimes. Seems to me you're selectivly reading my quote. If israel and palestine want to exchange rockets, and no american dollars are going into either side, and conforming to international law, that's fine with me.

 

>White phosphorous is a chemical in the same sense that mustard gas or tear gas is a chemical.

 

Holy shit man, there's a huge distinction between tear gas and mustard gas. Tear gas just smokes people out of a house. Mustard gas and white phosphorous are chemical weapons that are banned by international law as set by the geneva conventions. and for a fucking reason.

 

>Because governments have never made questionable moves

 

so if other governments jumped off a bridge, should israel and the US do so as well?

 

>Also, white phosphorus has strategic implementations as it will also provide cover for ground troops. But, lets not get ahead of ourselves hear.

 

but of course, that isn't what it was used for, and even if it was, its use is still strictly forbidden. Geneva conventions, war crimes, etc.

 

>but does that mean that they're a bunch of murderers? No

 

actually, yeah, governments are usually just bunches of murderers.

 

>Theres a HUGE difference between using chemical weapons that terrorists "use/plan/whatever" (biological) vs. chemicals

 

missing the point. If Israel uses illegal chemical weapons that constitute war crimes, then don't complain when terrorists do. That's all.

 

>Theres a big problem with not having troops abroad. First off, without troops abroad America would lose its status as a super-power, which is a huge problem. Not to mention i'd much rather have troops overseas, this way if a war breaks out, it will happen THERE, and NOT here.

 

uh, what? Plenty of countries around the world are "super powers" without having troops everywhere. If anything, we'd become more powerful because our national defense would be the top of the line and ending all the waste involved in the military budget would certianly boost the economy.

 

if we had a foreign policy of peace, honesty, self-defense, and free trade with open relations, we'd be twice the super power we are today.

 

and it would happen there, unless of course, we're attacked here, and we can't stop it because all of the troops are stationed in countries that didn't need stationing in the first place.

 

>Not to mention, America wouldn't really be America if it didn't try and help people.

 

I'm all for helping people, but having our troops across the world isn't doing anyone but Dick Cheney anything good at all. What would stop us from being America is becoming a country with no freedom whatsoever, or cutting all ties of trade to other countries.

 

>There are much bigger strains on our budget then the military. But just being in many different countries shows our presence as a super-power and helps keeps peace in the long-run. Pretend you're in elementary school and you wanted money (and were the school bully), would you bully the kid who's big brother is right there to back him up, or find another source of money?

 

only thing more strenuous on our country than our military would be the federal reserve. Being in different coutnries doesn't show anything aside from our willingness to weaken our military by overextending it, and creates more strife in the long run. I really recommend reading that 9/11 report, and listening to some of the stuff Michael Scheuer has to say. That elementary school thing makes no sense as many of the countries we are in can fend for themselves, and if they can't, then chances are they're a middle eastern country that doesn't want us there and our presence there only creates more terrorists as troops in the middle east are not peace time troops.

 

>First off, you really must be naive to think that the Arab nations (leaders) don't hate our freedoms

 

oh, absolutely not. Our own CIA and the 9/11 report had very strong evidence and were very clear that our foreign policy in the middle east since WWII are the cause of "them" hating "us."

 

Ayatollah Khomenai tried for a decade to instigate a jihad against the United States on the basis of our degeneracy and our debauchery, our movies, our women in the workplace. It didn’t work. No one blew themselves up because of R-rated movies. Al Qaeda and its like have gone to school on the abject failure of the Ayatollah. They have focused on U.S. foreign policy and they’ve found it to be a glue of unity, a glue of cohesion across the Islamic world

 

>And no, bringing the troops back wouldn't ultimately decrease the chance of an attack

 

once again, yes it would, as the blowback mentioned above would end along with our military presence globally.

[Crocoduck]

Honestly, I'm simply not going back and reading everything that was said before, but I automatically dislike this thread for only having the option of Israeli's being right or Palestinian's being right. This is not a black or white issue, there isn't a good guy and a bad guy. Both sides are equally in the right and equally in the wrong and it's fucked up for both of them.

 

Jews-> This is an ethnic group that has been shit on since the dawn of their existence. Seriously. Every single period of history since the dawn of Judaism has seen the Jews persecuted and mistreated. This just peaked with WWII's Holocaust. At this point the world was finally like, "Maaaaaaybe we should stop this from happening for the 50000th time..." and gave them a country. A nation that could protect it's people from something like this ever happening again. They needed a homeland, and they couldn't just be thrown in some random island that had no name. They were given the land they so desperately wanted and believed was their right, that was promised to them. 

 

Palestinians-> These are people who were quite literally uprooted and shuffled around because of somebody else's problems. Regardless of how bad those problems are, that doesn't change the reality of the expulsion of these people from the land of their ancestors and a land that they also believe to be holy. They had no vote or say in the matter of their relocation, and it's not like they could fight back either.

 

Israeli military-> A lot of people claim the evidence of how Isreal is in the wrong lies within the fact that the palestinians are fighting with rocks while the jews are fighting with tanks. Well no shit they're fighting with tanks. Imagine this is WWII and canada is germany, mexico is japan and the only the UK is the only country that's says they'll protect us, but they don't really do much to help on the day to day. You bet your ass the US would beef up its military and fight any threat it saw. Israel is surrounded by the threat of destruction on literally all sides. They may seem a bit excessive, but put terrorists at your literal border and have them constantly trying to kill you. See how restrained you can be.

 

Palestinians -> Many claim the terrorists are a clear indication of how Palestine is in the wrong. A) Palestine is not Osama Bin Laden. It's not a single entity with a representative that speaks for all its people. It's full of humans. People. All with different ideas and beliefs, and just like in the rest of the arab world, there's a certain percentage of these people that believe the answer is brutal violence, suicide bombings, destruction and death. They use fear tactics and the promise of protection, financial security and spiritual fulfillment to swell their ranks with suicidal bombers and they fight for a cause that all palestinians can relate to. That does not mean all palestinians are terrorists, however.

 

So, yea

 

There is no right or wrong. Suggesting somebody is "right" is silly.

[F CHARLIE]

Now that we have had this part of the discussion how about we look into your opinions about a solution. Layout what you think is good from all perspectives if possible.

[Klappar]

Now that we have had this part of the discussion how about we look into your opinions about a solution. Layout what you think is good from all perspectives if possible.

 

its impossible to make peace with them... they lied many times after peace agreemants

i live in ashqelon (close to gaza) and 1 day after the news says there were peace agreemant with arabs, there were at least 4-5 alarms

 

"The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him" (the quran)

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

its impossible to make peace with them... they lied many times after peace agreemants

i live in ashqelon (close to gaza) and 1 day after the news says there were peace agreemant with arabs, there were at least 4-5 alarms

 

"The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him" (the quran)

its only impossible while Arab nations are still led by ruthless dictators/anarchists. The majority of Arabs (at least the ones i've met) are quite friendly--its just the select (but powerful) few that cause all this trouble. 

[F CHARLIE]

its impossible to make peace with them... they lied many times after peace agreemants

i live in ashqelon (close to gaza) and 1 day after the news says there were peace agreemant with arabs, there were at least 4-5 alarms

 

"The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him" (the quran)

  

its only impossible while Arab nations are still led by ruthless dictators/anarchists. The majority of Arabs (at least the ones i've met) are quite friendly--its just the select (but powerful) few that cause all this trouble.

 

 

Ofcourse there is a solution. It may take a shift in position and sometimes an event to catylize the situation. Retohric like that is common when sides oppose eachother.

[Crocoduck]

There is no solution. At least no solution that any non-genius can think up. It's an impossibly bad situation for all parties and the only thing that can be done is that the misfortune be minimized. 

 

So what has to happen is that the Arab nations around Isreal need to ... change completely, 100%. They have to have not batshit insane and oppressive governments and be ruled by a more sensible generation of leaders.

 

Terrorists have to be eradicated from not just Palestine, but the middle east in general. Their influence over the common person is what makes palestine have this image of being a terrorist nation, when in truth it's not. Terrorist organization feed starving families and give them life-long protection if one of their family members commits a suicide bombing. This isn't "Arab's being untrustworthy" this is a militant fringe group that has an incredible grasp over the majority of the population, whether or not the population itself likes it. 

 

With those threats taken care of, Isreal needs to power down and chill. They can't be threatening Palestinians and their land and they have to be more willing to compromise, the same with Palestinians.

 

Again, it's a rather impossible situation that can't be solved, neither party will ever truly be satisfied with the result. 

[Bomsusik]

Sorry AwesomeMcCoolName, I missed the shitstorm
Thank god You had an umbrella with You.

 

 

Qazz42, as long as I tried to stay polite on this thread, I must admit in how much shit comes out of your keyboard. It just seems like You don't even inspect the latest events.

 

This Sunday, the IDF Soldier Shlomi Cohen (R.I.P) got killed by a Lebanese soldier across the border fence. Ironic isn't it?
If You want to inspect this incident You can go here:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-soldier-killed-in-lebanon-border-incident-identified-as-shlomi-cohen-31-from-afula/

And I don't think the whole arabic surrounding will do such a thing like patching up Israeli citizens.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/three-more-injured-syrians-treated-at-nahariya-hospital/

The thing I like in Israel and makes me proud to be a citizen of it, is that it's a friendly country.
 

[OverduePixels]

The issue is their religous differences.  If the question is asking which religion is correct, I don't think any of us are qualified to answer.

 

JyMotion answered what I was about to say. So, yes. I myself think that as well and believe that none of us are qualified to answer.

[Klappar]

JyMotion answered what I was about to say. So, yes. I myself think that as well and believe that none of us are qualified to answer.

 

where the quran says that this land is for the muslims?

also, http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html ...

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

where the quran says that this land is for the muslims?

also, http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html ...

i do believe the quaran does say that that land will belong to them (although I'm not sure). 

 

But, the Old Testement also says Israel (Canaan) will* belong to the Jews. Emphasis on "will" as at the time the Jews didn't control the land--but rather it was "promised" to the Jews while they were looking at Israel, right before entering it after wandering the desert for a year. 

 

BUT, i think the question is more; who should be in control--and that really has nothing to do with religion. "To the victor goes the spoils". You don't exactly see America giving the north-east coast back to England, or florida back to Spain, or California/Texas back to Mexico.

 

On a side note--Gaza was actually a beautiful and well maintained city when they gave it to the Palestinians. It was their leaders that turned it into the shit-hole it is today. 

[Gone]

look. when a muslim kills 1 person, he's called a terrorist. when a non muslim kills muslims, gang rapes the women and what not, they're not called terrorists. sounds fair. the media tells everyone all about the bad thing we do, and all about the good thing u guys do.  And no, those suicide bombers dont go to heaven. they go to hell for killing themselves.

 

This is exactly true

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

This is exactly true

When Gaza sends rockets into Israel no one bats an eye, but when Israel retaliates all of a sudden everyone has a hissy fit. 

[Gone]

When Gaza sends rockets into Israel no one bats an eye, but when Israel retaliates all of a sudden everyone has a hissy fit.

 

It's the other way around. Well maybe it's just where I live. The county I live in, the majority of people are Jews then Chinese.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

It's the other way around. Well maybe it's just where I live. The county I live in, the majority of people are Jews then Chinese.

Yeah....not really. I visited Steirot, Israel (a city right outside of Gaza); and in that city they have bomb bunkers ever couple hundred feet (i don't remember the exact distance). But you're told not to put your kids' seatbelt on because when the rocket alert goes off you only have a few seconds to grab the kid on the ground (and under you), or into a bomb shelter. Yet this goes widely unnoticed. 

 

Picture of a Kindergarden with New Jersey Barriers blockading the windows

 

Picture of one of the bomb shelters on the inside

 

Picture of one of the bomb shelters on the outside

 

Picture of one of the storage racks at one of the local stations

[Klappar]

i do believe the quaran does say that that land will belong to them (although I'm not sure). 

 

But, the Old Testement also says Israel (Canaan) will* belong to the Jews. Emphasis on "will" as at the time the Jews didn't control the land--but rather it was "promised" to the Jews while they were looking at Israel, right before entering it after wandering the desert for a year. 

 

BUT, i think the question is more; who should be in control--and that really has nothing to do with religion. "To the victor goes the spoils". You don't exactly see America giving the north-east coast back to England, or florida back to Spain, or California/Texas back to Mexico.

 

On a side note--Gaza was actually a beautiful and well maintained city when they gave it to the Palestinians. It was their leaders that turned it into the shit-hole it is today. 

 

god siad he will give it to the israelites on the torah, but on sefer nevihim (which is after the torah), you can see how the israelites won canaan, the philistines, some kings and got their lands.

 

but if the question is not related to religion then i still would say jews deserved it more than the arabs. this land were moderated by british empire and not arabs. the britain given the land for us, but the arabs dont want this to happen because they hate us and they will keep hate us until their redemption will happen.

and america is not like israel, the world dont hate them, they dont have religion which all the world hate, they are much bigger land than israel and if the arabs will try to do this to america, it may be the end of the islam.

 

and like i posted here before, the quran are very anti-semitic and racist and that is why the arabs will alyways want to kill jews. i even saw some speeches of muslims admitted that.

i suggest you to see this http://hayamin.org/forum/index.php/topic,32508.0.html

 

and you right about gaza, thats another reason of why the arabs should not get this land lol

 

 

The thing I like in Israel and makes me proud to be a citizen of it, is that it's a friendly country.

 

me too

we dont want to kill arabs, we want to defend ourself, but we must kill them to do it

[Marik]

look. when a muslim kills 1 person, he's called a terrorist. when a non muslim kills muslims, gang rapes the women and what not, they're not called terrorists. sounds fair. the media tells everyone all about the bad thing we do, and all about the good thing u guys do.  And no, those suicide bombers dont go to heaven. they go to hell for killing themselves. 

You don't go to heaven after blowing yourself up, even if you kill someone. That's still suiciding. The Quran don't say that you go to heaven if you blow yourself up. Sacrificing yourself for Islam in a Jihad is another story though and according to the Hadith you will get to heaven with 72 virgins.

[Professional Map Painter]

 Sacrificing yourself for Islam in a Jihad is another story though and according to the Hadith you will get to heaven with 72 virgins.

[t0night]

Meant French. Couldn't decide whether to use florida or Louisiana, and ended up using "both"

 

Well, if Israel were to give the land back to Palestine because they were there first, then america should give itself to the native americans. Who was there first is a pretty shitty argument for land ownership. Look at the entirety of the world. Every country at some point fought, and won the land from another nation. So to say the land belongs to the Palestinians because they were there first is obscene. Plus, at what point do you go to to claim ownership? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Israel has been fought over and conquered for millennia. So why should it belong to the Palestinians who controlled it for the past few hundred years, why not the Greeks who controlled it at the beginning of the first millennia? 

 

As for who are the righful owners....Who won the war? I've gotta say it belongs to the Israelis'. Israel won the wars, therefore it should belong to them.

I think perhaps at the point where you have one nation barricading people in a small, not sustainable (don't give me that about 'it was sustainable then they tore down hospitals because they're mindless warmongerers') strip of land, then occassionally invading it and pulverising it when the people you've barricaded get unsurprisingly angry, might may no longer be entirely right. But hey, you're born and bred American I assume, so it makes sense that a citizen of a current global imperial power would agree that a) its colony is in the right and that aggression, occupation and general military superiority gives a nation the right to do what it pleases. I didn't really see what people meant about the military-industrial complex but I think I'm getting it.