"Palestinian"

Feb 2011
299
0
Canada
Palestinians are Natives to the land of Palestine which now is illegally called "Israel". No-one has the right to kick people out of their native lands due to some religious fantasy or heavenly homeland or in order for judgment day to happen. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!

Hear, hear.
 
Feb 2011
299
0
Canada
That is a complete fiction which has no basis in history. There not only is no such thing as a "Palestinian" - the nomadic hashemite tribes who use that fake name have no more claim to Israel than they have to Nebraska. :p

I would suggest you read about the JEWS and their wiping out of the entire populations of ancient 'Israel' in order to conquer that land. Joshua must be a hero to you. Odd that no one is allowed to even mention the killing of men, women and children of Jericho, lest it anger the JEWS.
 
Feb 2011
299
0
Canada
The "Palestinians" at issue are of course the ones who DON'T live there, Einstein, including lots who have NEVER lived there. :rolleyes:

That would be due to the fact they WERE DRIVEN OUT, genius. The JEWS warred against the native inhabitants of Palestine, even to the point of killing British soldiers. I would know this since my family is of British descent. I should like to point out that the JEWS were pretty much the first terrorists of the Middle East. Odd no one points this out? Fear of JEW reprisal, no doubt. I would suggest you read up on Haganah etc. The Jews were the first to commit terrorist atrocities against the West.
 
Aug 2011
758
0
The folks is Gaza, and the West bank and the refugees that lived in modern Israel pre-nationalist invasions would like to have a word with you.

Uh, nooooooo - those people moved out in 1948 to clear the decks for what they hoped would be a slaughter of the jews by the unprovoked invasion by six invading national arab armies. Didn't wok out like they expected. Then the jews were supposed to invite those same people back??? Absurd.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Uh, nooooooo - those people moved out in 1948 to clear the decks for what they hoped would be a slaughter of the jews by the unprovoked invasion by six invading national arab armies. Didn't wok out like they expected. Then the jews were supposed to invite those same people back??? Absurd.

Please, most of them were forced out by the IDF so they could fight without civilians in the way. After the war Israel took advantage of the situation and ether forced the Palestinians to sell their land for next to nothing or seized the land outright and used it to entice (mostly Soviet) Jews to move in to populate their new country. And why would Jews and Christians clear out for Muslim Arabs anyway or are you 1 of those fools who thinks all Palestinians are Muslims?
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Faux history. You're a regular sewage pipe of islamofascist propaganda. :p

You really need to read a history book if you think the IDF shot up the place with civilians present and that Soviet (now Russian) Jews don't make up a large part of the population.
 
Feb 2011
299
0
Canada
Uh, nooooooo - those people moved out in 1948 to clear the decks for what they hoped would be a slaughter of the jews by the unprovoked invasion by six invading national arab armies. Didn't wok out like they expected. Then the jews were supposed to invite those same people back??? Absurd.

The Jews were not 'invaded' by six national arab armies. More American propaganda as dictated by their Jew masters.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
The Jews were not 'invaded' by six national arab armies. More American propaganda as dictated by their Jew masters.

Technically true (in the 6 Days War at least) but they did plan to. You don't launch preemptive strikes on your hippy happy go lucky fiends next door, just saying.
 
Aug 2011
758
0
Technically true (in the 6 Days War at least) but they did plan to. You don't launch preemptive strikes on your hippy happy go lucky fiends next door, just saying.

No, it was technically true in 1948. You tards need to read a standard history of the area - it won't be hard, why don't you do it? Then you won't be polluting this site with such laughable ignorance.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
No, it was technically true in 1948. You tards need to read a standard history of the area - it won't be hard, why don't you do it? Then you won't be polluting this site with such laughable ignorance.

Is it possible for you to be respectful for once? You make yourself look foolish and childish with your disrespectful name-calling that is often offensive to other people (such as mentally challenged people in this post). You talk about polluting the site here, but it is your 3-year-old namecalling that is what really pollutes the site.
 
Aug 2011
758
0
Is it possible for you to be respectful for once? You make yourself look foolish and childish with your disrespectful name-calling that is often offensive to other people (such as mentally challenged people in this post). You talk about polluting the site here, but it is your 3-year-old namecalling that is what really pollutes the site.

You're right, but that guy has so many things wrong or backwards......
 
Aug 2011
76
0
So Patrick's argument boils down to these three points.

- People who were living on their land for hundreds of years have no rights because they had no recognized independent nation or strong national identity (the "Palestinians")
- the 2,000 year old history and dictates of one holy book are all-important, while the dictates of a slightly younger holy book are meaningless
- in the many separate and ongoing conflicts between the Jews and the Arabs over Israel/Palestine, the Israelis were always blameless and the Arabs were always to blame, from the large to the small, in every particular.

Did I misrepresent your position in any way, Patrick?
 
Feb 2011
299
0
Canada
So Patrick's argument boils down to these three points.

- People who were living on their land for hundreds of years have no rights because they had no recognized independent nation or strong national identity (the "Palestinians")
- the 2,000 year old history and dictates of one holy book are all-important, while the dictates of a slightly younger holy book are meaningless
- in the many separate and ongoing conflicts between the Jews and the Arabs over Israel/Palestine, the Israelis were always blameless and the Arabs were always to blame, from the large to the small, in every particular.

Did I misrepresent your position in any way, Patrick?

You should realise by now that it is because the people involved with 'Palestine' are JEWS. Cannot anger that particular group. Theirs is the ONLY GROUP ON THE PLANET that can have you put into jail for 20 years for simply denying their bullshit history.
 
Aug 2011
758
0
So Patrick's argument boils down to these three points.

- People who were living on their land for hundreds of years have no rights because they had no recognized independent nation or strong national identity (the "Palestinians")

Actually, the hashemite tribes were wandering ALL OVER THE MIDEAST for hundreds of years. So why pick this particular sliver of land and demand they be given it? Why not "give" them Jordan? Lebanon? :p

- the 2,000 year old history and dictates of one holy book are all-important, while the dictates of a slightly younger holy book are meaningless

You're hallucinating - I didn't say anything about holy books. :rolleyes:

- in the many separate and ongoing conflicts between the Jews and the Arabs over Israel/Palestine, the Israelis were always blameless and the Arabs were always to blame, from the large to the small, in every particular.

The arabs made unprovoked attacks in 1948, 1972 and many smaller engagements. If any country tried that with the US, we'd vaporize them.

Did I misrepresent your position in any way, Patrick?

Your stuff is total fiction made from whole cloth.
 
Aug 2011
76
0
Perhaps one in five

Actually, the hashemite tribes were wandering ALL OVER THE MIDEAST for hundreds of years. So why pick this particular sliver of land and demand they be given it? Why not "give" them Jordan? Lebanon? :p

The only point Patrick actually answered with a real answer (trying reading the questions over again, Patrick) was the old Hashemite Tribes myth of Palestinian origin. A fairly neutral study was done (I believe it was three Israeli scholars, two of whom were Jewish) which found that only about one in five Palestinians fit the profile of being Hashemite. I guess that means the Israelis can ignore the historical claims of about 1.5 million Palestinians (including refugees). Still leaves 6 million people that your pathetic re-writing of history doesn't cover.
 
Aug 2011
758
0
Actually, the hashemite tribes were wandering ALL OVER THE MIDEAST for hundreds of years. So why pick this particular sliver of land and demand they be given it? Why not "give" them Jordan? Lebanon? :p

The only point Patrick actually answered with a real answer (trying reading the questions over again, Patrick) was the old Hashemite Tribes myth of Palestinian origin. A fairly neutral study was done (I believe it was three Israeli scholars, two of whom were Jewish) which found that only about one in five Palestinians fit the profile of being Hashemite. I guess that means the Israelis can ignore the historical claims of about 1.5 million Palestinians (including refugees). Still leaves 6 million people that your pathetic re-writing of history doesn't cover.

We'll just have to use our imagination as to where this study is and who wrote it. :p Although the vast majority of "palestinians" are hashemite, sure, some other ethnicity is probably mixed in, but how does that change anything? The fact remains that "palestine" never existed as a state, and there is no such ethnicity as "palestinian"; the former is simply a colonial name for a territory, used by various conquerors of the region, and the latter is only a political term of art used to brainwash the uninformed and simpleminded.
 
Top