> Vladimir_Weiss wrote:

> 9 pages of shit and the war hasn't even started

what he said.

still better than 2 rounds ago, when fams would rather delete than give other fams planets...

> Vladimir_Weiss wrote:

my banker deleted so now I have only one with a constant 3 OHs <

Lies! he's in pmode so i can't OH him D:...

good luck to both sides.
results are already fixed tho, sadly :\.
unless some weird ass miracle happens.

not an interesting war tbh.

+ israel got nukes, and they're probably idiotic enough to use them. Maybe even on their allies.

Iran and North Korea getting nukes are today's biggest threat to world peace? No way, Israel, with a bigger amount of Nukes than China is a far bigger threat to world peace.

>> >Imam Rauf only states he won't call it a terrorist organisation. He does not state he is in favour of Hamas. He just thinks it is not a terrorist organisation, as Hamas does not bomb just any country but are/might be trying to wage a war for their independence/more land. This could lead him to calling it a different kind of organisation, such as a patriotic political organisation fighting for independence, rather than an organisation just trying to cause fear. This still does not mean he sympathises with Hamas.<

There is no middle ground possible.  "Oh I don't support them or sympathize, I just want to find positive terms to describe them so they will get along with me".

Then he is a terrorist supporter, and he should be frustrated in an attempt to sell donuts, let alone build his mosque at Ground Zero.  He should be expelled from the United States.  He is our enemy.<<

Now this is exactly what people mean when they say you are using a "you're not with us, so you must be against us" arguement. Those arguements are faulty and even highschool freshmen should be able to see the flaw in such reasoning. Sucks to hear from you you don't. Except if you're just kidding around which i've seen you do before so i'm not sure... D:

>>>Human life may be important but for many the nation/religion is more important. This may seem barbaric to you, but to others it may seem bad to be too emotional and the way the science of what's good or bad (forgot the word) obstructing scientific development seems ignorant and idiotic.
In Hamas's case it's probably the nation/religion part though. <

I am not trying to win the Nobel Peace Prize for globally respected absence of bias and willingness to see all sides.

If you're right about what Hamas wants, i say kill them.  We should help Israel by using our Navy to help the bombardment.<<

So from this i understand that you think every organisation that fights for their nation/religion should deserve to be killed? Once again i don't know if you're kidding but if you're not, then i take it you oppose every organisation fighting for independence or the freedom of religion? Like the US revolutionaries, almost any old colony and even more?

>>You're still arguing that it's relevant because 2 wrongs make a right, or that most of the world is barbaric enough to believe so. Repeating past wrongs is not a recipe for avoiding them in the future. <<

I am not argueing 2 wrongs make a right, i'm argueing one wrong caused another wrong, but that other wrong is relevant to the discussion.

and btw, every time i said I would, it was judged from the position of a patriotic party being conquered. Think of it as your country being conquered. You wouldn't like that right. That's the way i was thinking.

>>No, it's not. I guess you hold the position that there are no penalties for losing wars. <<

war only commenced after the land grab had started.

>>I think you meant to say, "from those who attacked them." Because "[t]his exact thing happened."<<

Yes i do mean that. Yes, those surrounding countries did attack Israel, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a reason to attack. Maybe just trying to help out fellow muslims? maybe thinking they could grab some land for themselves? I don't know.
However, Israel didn't do anything against them either. Palestinian refugees who had fled to those countries had been targeted by Israel, thus Israel making attacks on the territory of those surrounding countries. Now i don't know what was first, i'll have to research that.

>>The Israelis didn't take their land. It was given to them. Primarily by the USA. After it took part in pwning the land's former owners. A long, long time ago. Maybe I should start with a history of the creation of Israel. Or go years earlier, when its former owners sided with the wrong blokes and got pwned.<<

I know the Israelis didn't take the land at first and that it was given to them by the USA (through the UN). Still, land was taken from the inhabitents, and those inhabitents saw the newcomers as their enemies. overgeneralisation happens, a lot (already stated before by myself).
Direct cause of the 6-day war was indeed the land the USA had given to the Israelis.

On a sidenote however, after the 6-day war Israel occupied more land than it was initially given, and in recent times the Israelis have been taking more land through colonisation.

>>Suicide bombing civilians isn't a guerrilla tactic. [...] numbers of murderous barbarians.<<
Guerilla warfare is indeed tactical warfare, but the tactic is to raid the opponent when they don't expect it, and to retreat to live another day, thus avoiding getting killed. While the actual suicide bombers do not survive, the organization does and does live on to raid (a suicide bombing) another day. So yeah it isn't really Guerilla warfare, i made a mistake there. But it is comparable in my opinion.

>>Wrong. If China invaded the USA and started moving in Chinese, I wouldn't rationalize that murdering the relocated civilians was just. That's the sort of thing an idiot without values would do to vent his juvenile frustration. It wouldn't solve anything. It would make things worse, because the Chinese who had conquered my home would surely take action to protect its civilians from future attacks of the sort. And it wouldn't be right, regardless of being counterproductive.<<

very very true, except history has told us the initial and most favoured response is to rebel. Palestinian rebellion in this case.
Of course it is stupid to do such things, but think of how scared/angry you are at that exact moment and all the other emotions involved in initial responses. Then there's patriotism, widely spread amongst the less intelectual.
When i said I would i was actually referring to the general response i'd expect from most of the population. I wouldn't know how i'd act in such situations as i've never been in any....

>>This is why I do not hesitate to condemn Rauf as such a barbarian. He too rationalizes the murder of civilians. If he cannot even share our value that human life is sacred and murdering civilians is wrong, then he supports terrorism by sharing its barbaric, murderous [lack of] values. If he cannot agree that civilian murder is NOT the way forward, then he cannot contribute anything of value in the fight to be rid of it. In the fight to be rid of civilian murder, the man who doesn't even share it as his goal isn't any help in winning the fight. I'm with you on condemning numerous actions by Israel and the USA--a lot more than are evident from the course of this thread, certainly--but I do not believe that murdering civilians is just. And it's not productive, because nobody who agrees with me that civilian murder is wrong gains respect for anyone who engages in it--Quite the opposite.<<

Human life may be important but for many the nation/religion is more important. This may seem barbaric to you, but to others it may seem bad to be too emotional and the way the science of what's good or bad (forgot the word) obstructing scientific development seems ignorant and idiotic.
In Hamas's case it's probably the nation/religion part though. Imam Rauf only states he won't call it a terrorist organisation. He does not state he is in favour of Hamas. He just thinks it is not a terrorist organisation, as Hamas does not bomb just any country but are/might be trying to wage a war for their independence/more land. This could lead him to calling it a different kind of organisation, such as a patriotic political organisation fighting for independence, rather than an organisation just trying to cause fear. This still does not mean he sympathises with Hamas.

>> If Palestinians engaged in peaceful protests demanding that Israel stick to its original borders and Palestinians be left to theirs, I would be 100% behind Palestinians and against Israel taking more land than its original borders.<<
Of course peaceful demonstration would have a far less negative feedback, but peaceful demonstration doesn't reach the newspapers as shooting rockets does and requires a lot more patience.

some a-hole groups have an actual purpose, an actual understandable purpose when you look at them closely.
BiefstukFriet i suggest you check out the nrc link i posted some time ago and then rethink if hamas is comparable to the nazi's.

and tbh, i'd say almost none of the a-hole groups are comparable to the nazi's...

added the link to the main page of the article.

http://www.nrc.nl/achterpagina/article2484476.ece/Het_conflict_verplaatst_Frisia-Nederland

http://www.nrc.nl/redactie/foto/frisia.html

And btw, Rauf has never said he supported Hamas. He just didn't want to call Hamas a terrorist organization.

"Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

Another case of "you're not with us, so you're against us". Except now it is, "you're not against them, so you must be with them".
This kind of faulty argumenting is called... over-generalisation right? just like saying "some Israelians are taking our land, so all Israelians must be bad" right?

If you are pointing out other things, I'd like to know what those things are, and how you got those ideas/where you got those ideas from. Quotes, that is. If you have posted them before, i apologize, i haven't seen them, but i don't think you have posted them.
so how do we know you're not quoting someone else who heard from someone who wrote something based on the book of someone who interviewed someone who knows someone who then interviewed the Imam?

I don't believe this to be the case, or well i hope so... But how can we otherwise believe you?
Provide universally known facts or quotes if facts aren't universally known. <-- learned that in like my first class of high school?

Since those facts you provide as universally known are clearly not universally known (by Khaz Modan, Fokker, and ME for example), could you provide the quotes?

Other controversial quotes from the Imam are:

"because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."
Examples he (i think) meant: napalm bombing in vietnam, US backing of Israel, etc.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
Another one here would be the napalm bombing in vietnam and My Lai. The My Lai massacre, does that ring a bell?

EDIT: A bit off topic: if you think the US backing of Israel is COMPLETELY justified and done the right way, well, consider this.

http://www.nrc.nl/redactie/foto/frisia.html

It is in Dutch but the picture shows a lot.

I found this very shocking.

It's about what the Netherlands would look like if, for some odd reason, we would have the same conflict as Israel/Palestinia is having nowadays.
The Netherlands represents Palestina, Frysland represents Israel. How the UN meant there to be a 50-50 sharing of Frisians and Dutch of the entire Netherlands (1948 pic). However, the Frisian keep on taking more and more land ("colonising" as it's called), until the Dutch only have small parts of Zeeland and Limburg left, Limburg being "infested" with more frisian colonizations.

Relevancy? The Netherlands and Israel are very similar in area.