Political Crossfire Forums

skinn · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 426 Location: beirut

programmusic wrote: in other words, it's not a peace song.

there is no peace without justice, or it will only mean surrender.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

Dagger wrote: I swear to god this is the dumbest thing ive ever heard.
You must not have read your own post...

Dagger wrote: oo oo if anyone understands arabic or urdu. im sure i can get u peace songs.
Please do, along with their English translations...

Dagger wrote: But remember this. when most people want peace, its after a victory. i mean s**t. i dont want peace when my country loses a war., id rather keep fighting.
True, but on the other hand, I wouldn't call a song that dreams of Osama bin Laden's death any sort of "peace song."

Dagger wrote: Your talkin bout arabs look at the american national anthem

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that has made and preserved us as a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,

Im pretty sure the Palestnians have a just cause...
The destruction of another nation is not a just cause...and who the f**k told you that the American national anthem was a peace song? :-|

Dagger · Joined: 25 Apr 2005 Posts: 459 Location: Vancouver BC

Quote: You must not have read your own post...

Of course not, it just magically appeared.

Quote: Please do, along with their English translations...

Will do.

Quote: True, but on the other hand, I wouldn't call a song that dreams of Osama bin Laden's death any sort of "peace song."

Where talkin bout palestine, or other arab nations. What country does Osama represent? I didnt kno he was a country. And most of his influence on Afganistan is gone.

Quote: The destruction of another nation is not a just cause...and who the f**k told you that the American national anthem was a peace song?

Im not saying its a peace song, im merely stating, that stop looking for arab peace songs, and notice what American children sing every day. Maybe if you fix your on culture before the west imposes it on others it might help your situation.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

Dagger wrote: Quote: You must not have read your own post...

Of course not, it just magically appeared.
No, I was thinking more along the lines of you typing out of your ass and posting without giving it a second thought.

Dagger wrote: Quote: Please do, along with their English translations...

Will do.
I'll be waiting. 8:)

Dagger wrote: Quote: True, but on the other hand, I wouldn't call a song that dreams of Osama bin Laden's death any sort of "peace song."
Where talkin bout palestine, or other arab nations. What country does Osama represent? I didnt kno he was a country. And most of his influence on Afganistan is gone.
No, we're talking about peace songs. If Americans came up with a song talking about how beautiful the world would be after Osama bin Laden and all his sympathizers were drawn and quartered by American children, would that be a peace song?

Dagger wrote: Quote: The destruction of another nation is not a just cause...and who the f**k told you that the American national anthem was a peace song?
Im not saying its a peace song, im merely stating, that stop looking for arab peace songs, and notice what American children sing every day.
If you knew anything about America other than what you found on Google, you would know that we don't even sing that stanza of the national anthem...

Dagger wrote: Maybe if you fix your on culture before the west imposes it on others it might help your situation.
This isn't about imposing anything. The original poster of this thread (who isn't American, by the way) was pointing out how it's the Israelis who want peace more than the Arabs. It's funny how when Arabs are confronted about their violent culture, their only response is to attack America, even though it wasn't an American who confronted them. :lol:

thatisnotme · Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 452

Dagger wrote:

Im pretty sure the Palestnians have a just cause...

And which cause would that be? Wipe off Israel from the map?

The Palestinians can declare their own state anytime they wish to. By UN resolution 188, they have that right. Question is: why don't they? Answer: to do that they would have to recognize the state of Israel, what all extremists and most moderates are not prepared to do.

So again, which just cause are they fighting for?

programmusic · Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 928

I'm an American.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

programmusic wrote: I'm an American.
Hmm...from your other posts, I had guessed that you were Israeli...oh well...

Dagger · Joined: 25 Apr 2005 Posts: 459 Location: Vancouver BC

thatisnotme wrote: Dagger wrote:

Im pretty sure the Palestnians have a just cause...

And which cause would that be? Wipe off Israel from the map?

The Palestinians can declare their own state anytime they wish to. By UN resolution 188, they have that right. Question is: why don't they? Answer: to do that they would have to recognize the state of Israel, what all extremists and most moderates are not prepared to do.

So again, which just cause are they fighting for?

Why would they wanna wipe Isreal of the map, its there land and they want it back....

Maybe the Iranis wanna wipe the Isrealis of the map, but thats a big maybe and I kno that there not that dumb

thatisnotme · Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 452

Dagger wrote: thatisnotme wrote: Dagger wrote:

Im pretty sure the Palestnians have a just cause...

And which cause would that be? Wipe off Israel from the map?

The Palestinians can declare their own state anytime they wish to. By UN resolution 188, they have that right. Question is: why don't they? Answer: to do that they would have to recognize the state of Israel, what all extremists and most moderates are not prepared to do.

So again, which just cause are they fighting for?

Why would they wanna wipe Isreal of the map, its there land and they want it back....

Maybe the Iranis wanna wipe the Isrealis of the map, but thats a big maybe and I kno that there not that dumb

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

Dagger wrote: Why would they wanna wipe Isreal of the map, its there land and they want it back....
Thatisnotme just showed that it's not their land, but even if it was, so what? It's not theirs anymore and if you want to claim that it is theirs just because they controlled it a long time ago, we could just as easily say that it belongs to the Jews because they controlled it a long time ago before the Arabs ever got there...

Dagger wrote: Maybe the Iranis wanna wipe the Isrealis of the map, but thats a big maybe and I kno that there not that dumb
"Israel must be wiped off the map."
-- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

It's not a maybe.

skinn · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 426 Location: beirut

thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

thatisnotme · Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 452

skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

Regarding the Saudis:No. But do not mix apples with oranges. Palestine became a British mandate after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. When that mandate was over, the UN stepped in and created two states: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. So where is the stealing in all that?

skinn · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 426 Location: beirut

thatisnotme wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

Regarding the Saudis:No. But do not mix apples with oranges. Palestine became a British mandate after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. When that mandate was over, the UN stepped in and created two states: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. So where is the stealing in all that?

if palestine became a british mandate, it does not mean it belongs to britain.
britain did not have the right to create a new state out of nothing.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

Regarding the Saudis:No. But do not mix apples with oranges. Palestine became a British mandate after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. When that mandate was over, the UN stepped in and created two states: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. So where is the stealing in all that?

if palestine became a british mandate, it does not mean it belongs to britain.
britain did not have the right to create a new state out of nothing.
If that's true, then Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq have no right to exist...

skinn · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 426 Location: beirut

battleax86 wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

Regarding the Saudis:No. But do not mix apples with oranges. Palestine became a British mandate after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. When that mandate was over, the UN stepped in and created two states: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. So where is the stealing in all that?

if palestine became a british mandate, it does not mean it belongs to britain.
britain did not have the right to create a new state out of nothing.
If that's true, then Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq have no right to exist...

i don't care for the name of the country, or the munber of countries, i wouldn't even mind being one big country ( lebanon + syria + palestine + iraq + jordan).
i don't care if their is jews, christians and muslims coming from abroad to live in these countries.

but what i cannot understand, is bringing a whole people from abroad (russia, poland, U.S, germany...) to craete a new country by kicking out the original inhabitents.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

skinn wrote: battleax86 wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

Regarding the Saudis:No. But do not mix apples with oranges. Palestine became a British mandate after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. When that mandate was over, the UN stepped in and created two states: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. So where is the stealing in all that?

if palestine became a british mandate, it does not mean it belongs to britain.
britain did not have the right to create a new state out of nothing.
If that's true, then Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq have no right to exist...

i don't care for the name of the country, or the munber of countries, i wouldn't even mind being one big country ( lebanon + syria + palestine + iraq + jordan).
Really? So if Bashar Assad invaded Lebanon and announced that this was the first step in that process, would you welcome it? Would the rest of the Lebanese welcome it?

skinn wrote: i don't care if their is jews, christians and muslims coming from abroad to live in these countries.
It's a shame that most of your people don't seem to feel the same way...

skinn wrote: but what i cannot understand, is bringing a whole people from abroad (russia, poland, U.S, germany...) to craete a new country by kicking out the original inhabitents.
What are you talking about? Jews were the original inhabitants of that land long before the Arabs showed up in the 7th century and the only Arabs who were forcibly removed in 1948 were about 60,000 people from Lydda. The rest either stayed (and enjoy more rights than any other Arabs in the Middle East) or fled on their own.

skinn · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 426 Location: beirut

battleax86 wrote: skinn wrote: battleax86 wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

Regarding the Saudis:No. But do not mix apples with oranges. Palestine became a British mandate after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. When that mandate was over, the UN stepped in and created two states: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. So where is the stealing in all that?

if palestine became a british mandate, it does not mean it belongs to britain.
britain did not have the right to create a new state out of nothing.
If that's true, then Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq have no right to exist...

i don't care for the name of the country, or the munber of countries, i wouldn't even mind being one big country ( lebanon + syria + palestine + iraq + jordan).
Really? So if Bashar Assad invaded Lebanon and announced that this was the first step in that process, would you welcome it? Would the rest of the Lebanese welcome it?

skinn wrote: i don't care if their is jews, christians and muslims coming from abroad to live in these countries.
It's a shame that most of your people don't seem to feel the same way...

skinn wrote: but what i cannot understand, is bringing a whole people from abroad (russia, poland, U.S, germany...) to craete a new country by kicking out the original inhabitents.
What are you talking about? Jews were the original inhabitants of that land long before the Arabs showed up in the 7th century and the only Arabs who were forcibly removed in 1948 were about 60,000 people from Lydda. The rest either stayed (and enjoy more rights than any other Arabs in the Middle East) or fled on their own.

bashar el assad is a criminal dictator, and i wouldn't support any change unless it's based on democracy and human rights.

arabs are not a race, lebanese for example are now called arabs, 9000 years ago we were called phoenicians, but we are still the same people, same goes for the palestinians.

60 000, do you consider 60 000 as nothing?
and what about the 400 000 we have in lebanon?
their is concequences to these 60 000...

thatisnotme · Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 452

skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

Regarding the Saudis:No. But do not mix apples with oranges. Palestine became a British mandate after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. When that mandate was over, the UN stepped in and created two states: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. So where is the stealing in all that?

if palestine became a british mandate, it does not mean it belongs to britain.
britain did not have the right to create a new state out of nothing.

With your arguments, one can say Iraq should not exist, since it was forged out of the Ottoman empire by the British. Similarly, for Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, none of these countries should exist. And practically all of the African countries shouldn't exist since they were arbitrarily designed. None of the countries in both Americas should exist. In other words, you are advocating total chaos on this planet. Your arguments are totally absurd.

mendosan · Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 2535

skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote: skinn wrote: thatisnotme wrote:

It was never their land to start with. Until 1918, it was Ottoman land, then it was a British mandate until 1948, when it was divided between the Jews and the Arabs. In that interval of time, the Jews who immigrated to the mandated Palestine bought the land. The idea that the Jews stole the land is a myth that gullible people like you have swallowed hook, line and sink.

the ottomans were conquerers, this is not their land, only turkey is their land.
as for "buying the land" argument, it's a very shallow and naive argument.
for example, whole cities in lebanon are bought by saudis, does that give them the wright to declare them as new saudi arabia? :roll:

Regarding the Saudis:No. But do not mix apples with oranges. Palestine became a British mandate after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. When that mandate was over, the UN stepped in and created two states: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. So where is the stealing in all that?

if palestine became a british mandate, it does not mean it belongs to britain.
britain did not have the right to create a new state out of nothing.

The United Nations created it not Britain. The International community created Israel, it was theres to create and they did so.

battleax86 · Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 4997 Location: Texas

skinn wrote: bashar el assad is a criminal dictator, and i wouldn't support any change unless it's based on democracy and human rights.
Well, unless you're hoping for an American invasion of Lebanon, there's little chance of that happening while anyone alive today is still around.

skinn wrote: arabs are not a race, lebanese for example are now called arabs, 9000 years ago we were called phoenicians, but we are still the same people, same goes for the palestinians.
So what's the difference between a Saudi and a Jordanian or an Iraqi and a Syrian? When the Muslim Arabs conquered Lebanon in the 7th century, they mixed with the Phoenicians. You are not the same people as the ones that lived there thousands of years ago. That would be like saying that the Mexicans are the same people as the Aztecs. Calling the "Palestinians" the same people who lived there thousands of years ago is also pretty laughable because the only ones that lived in that area at the time were the Jews.

skinn wrote: 60 000, do you consider 60 000 as nothing?
No, but I weigh it against the 100,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab countries in that same time period.

skinn wrote: and what about the 400 000 we have in lebanon?
Adult descendants of refugees do not count as refugees themselves.

skinn wrote: their is concequences to these 60 000...
Why should there be? Why can't they be accepted as Lebanese?