[hugz`]

Originally Posted by iamjosh Its just recently that the United States has started doing this. This is why everyone hates us.

At least were safe.. if it wasn't for this war, who knows.. we might me the next generation of slavery..

[Zenith77]

Originally Posted by iamjosh False. That was a mistranslation of what he said. He said that the Israeli Regime has got to go. In all honesty we took that land and said here you go jews when it was really owned by the muslims.

Actually, a lot of jews owned far stretches of land before the 1948 U.N. ruling that created the state of Israel. In fact, the term "Zionist" comes from the locals around the area fearing the large surplus of jews purchasing land during the 1800's+ and that they were "trying to take it [the land] back."

And there was no mistranslation, don't know where you got that from.

[vvg125]

Originally Posted by Zenith77 Actually, a lot of jews owned far stretches of land before the 1948 U.N. ruling that created the state of Israel. In fact, the term "Zionist" comes from the locals around the area fearing the large surplus of jews purchasing land during the 1800's+ and that they were "trying to take it [the land] back."

This is entirely correct. However, it should, in all rights, still be under Palestinian rules. It doesn't matter if a large number of people from a certain background live on it, but it does belong to the Palestinians nonetheless. So iamjosh is right. The Jews didn't own that land, we took it from Palestinians and gave it to them.

[Zenith77]

Originally Posted by vvg125 This is entirely correct. However, it should, in all rights, still be under Palestinian rules. It doesn't matter if a large number of people from a certain background live on it, but it does belong to the Palestinians nonetheless. So iamjosh is right. The Jews didn't own that land, we took it from Palestinians and gave it to them.

Err, but you're STILL historically wrong though, as the Jews, or their ethnic source had it first. Here's some trivia for you: The word Palestine comes from Philistine, which means "foreign invader." Now, I'm not saying what the U.N. combined with Allied forces did was necessarily correct, just going over technicalities .

[vvg125]

Originally Posted by Zenith77 Err, but you're STILL historically wrong though, as the Jews, or their ethnic source had it first. Here's some trivia for you: The word Palestine comes from Philistine, which means "foreign invader." Now, I'm not saying what the U.N. combined with Allied forces did was necessarily correct, just going over technicalities .

Fine then... so with your logic, whoever first found the land rightfully owns it. So let us take the Mongols, who in ancient times invaded the Constantinople. We now call it Istanbul. It's still under Turkish rule. We can safely assume that it is Turkish land, can we not? Same logic applies here. It's great that the Jews were once ruling over that area, but through a certain set of incidents, Palestine took it. We can't just take it off of Palestinian hands and give it to the Jews.

[Zenith77]

Originally Posted by vvg125 Fine then... so with your logic, whoever first found the land rightfully owns it. So let us take the Mongols, who in ancient times invaded the Constantinople. We now call it Istanbul. It's still under Turkish rule. We can safely assume that it is Turkish land, can we not? Same logic applies here. It's great that the Jews were once ruling over that area, but through a certain set of incidents, Palestine took it. We can't just take it off of Palestinian hands and give it to the Jews.

But see the problem is, we ALREADY did. So with your logic, you'd have to contradict yourself, and force millions of settled people to get and move else where around the world. And your analogy, while it makes its point, is kind of irrelevant, considering there are not giant ethnic clashes over that particluar piece of land at the moment =p.

[vvg125]

Originally Posted by Zenith77 But see the problem is, we ALREADY did. So with your logic, you'd have to contradict yourself, and force millions of settled people to get and move else where around the world. And your analogy, while it makes its point, is kind of irrelevant, considering there are not giant ethnic clashes over that particluar piece of land at the moment =p.

Actually, there were great clashes of ethnicity at that time over that piece of land. I'm saying reverse the effect while we still have a chance, and find a compromise between two countries. Yes, the Jews were once there, but it doesn't give them the right to walk in and take it. You see, what happened is, millions of settlers WERE forced to move elsewhere. That's the problem.

[tacticalmedic]

Yes, having one's army evict you, then their sappers coming in and blowing up your home would imply forced. Then after you have "moved" to a refugee camp, having the same thing happen again... No wonder that area has been a hot bed of religious violence for all of my lifetime.
There will never be stability in that area. There has never been stability in that area. Sure, there might be a "peace treaty", but there will always be violence.

[Zenith77]

vvg, like I said last night, it's happened over and over again for the past 1000 years. The solution is not to keep evicting people until someone finally goes "okay fine, have it." but to create two seperate states in which the two groups are happy with. Groups like Hamas, as I stated over IRC, are not helping with things like this.

[hackziner]

The word Palestine comes from Philistine, which means "foreign invader.

Hum could you please show your source for the meaning ^^ ?

Um...Guys, nobody is invading anywhere.

I've just read a newspaper this morning that says the France is going to install a military base at Abu Dhabi (request of United Arabs Emirates) ... Quite strange isn't it ? France hasn't installed new bases since the second WW...