Forums / Discussion / General

168,550 total conversations in 5,398 threads

+ New Thread


Locked Locked
over a hundered convicted murderers are being released just so that peace negotation can start

Last posted Aug 01, 2013 at 09:34PM EDT. Added Jul 29, 2013 at 04:58AM EDT
46 posts from 18 users

usually, i try my best to avoid this whole israel-palastinanians subject, but the recent event brought my blood to a boil that i have to bring it up.

Israel, agreeing to the demands of the palastinian authority, decided to release 104 arab prisoners, all which are convicted for first class murder of innocent men, women and children and are sentenced to life in prison.

JUST SO THE PALASTINIANS WOULD AGREE TO ENGAGE PEACE NEGOTATION

this is sickening beyond any words the human language can come up with.

The israeli government displayed complete incompetence, and their desperation to start these negotiations is now obvious to all.
no real sane country would agree to this kind of agreement. i would like to see the US suddenly releasing a hundred AL-QAEDA activists just to show their peaceful intentions.

but most of all, it just shows how the palastinans don’t give a shit about this peace ideals.
what kind of a nation demands the release of convicted murderers just so they can agree to TALK about peace?

if they truly cared about peace they would have agreed that these people are human slime and deserve to rot in prison.
but no, to the palastinans, these creatures are considered as ‘heroes’ and ’freedom fighters.

people who stab kids in their sleep, throw molotov’s and civilian cars, and start shooting everyone in malls ARE HEROES to the palastinians.

and i remind again, that these are the people we are supposed to have a peace agreement with.

for the record, i don’t recall jews intentionally murdering ANYONE be considered as heroes. hell, even during the holocaust i never heard of jews killing random german civilians let alone be praised as heroes for that.

any nation that would considers killers of the helpless is considered barbaric and insane.

and yet some people, even here still support them and try to ‘understand them’ that when people are under occupation they see any act of harming the enemy as heroism.

well im sorry, that’s just bullshit. never, EVER in human history, murder of innocent people was considered heroic. it was acts of sabotage against military targets that was considered meaningful.

i never heard of american heroes who were famous for blowing japanese civilians up from planes or any russian heroes famous for raping german girls. because that’s stuff people dont want to remember.

and don’t start talking about israeli war crimes, those few that did happen, were very harshly judged by the israelis themselves and are always remembered with great shame and embarrassment.

not the people we are trying to have peace with, no sir. they actually have streets named after some criminals who ‘succefully’ killed an ‘impressive’ amount civilians.

so am i really here who see the absurdity in all this?
can’t anyone else see that these ‘peace’ agreements lead only to more bloodshed and arab hostility? why else would the demand the release of convicted murderers?

but you could then ask, what other solution is there?
actually it already happened. the palastinans live in their own independent autonomy. their lives there could be good and prosperous and the soldiers would gladly go back home if only their leaders would stop dedicating all their available resources to immortalizing this damnable conflict and educating their young that jews are the relatives of pigs.

.
.

Jul 29, 2013 at 04:58AM EDT
Quote

Palestinians live in their own autonomy? I would hardly call a country blockaded on all sides and constantly bombed by the IDF free.

Israel’s the one that’s really the war criminal. Bombing hospitals is against the Geneva Conventions.

But I guess I could sum it up like this.

It’s rather common for the oppressor to complain about being oppressed when their oppression is called into question.

Jul 29, 2013 at 05:18AM EDT
Quote

Don’t worry Jolly Jew, The PLO collaborators will arrest 100 other Palestinians and hand them over to Israeli jails in like a week or so to make up the numbers.

Jul 29, 2013 at 06:21AM EDT
Quote

Prisoner exchanges are often a pre-condition to negotiation.

Also, it’s rather difficult for the Palestinians to live peacefully and prosperously in their own independent territory when Israeli settlers are continually taking their land, kicking them off, and building settlements on it. Recall that these settlements are universally recognized as being illegal and in contravention of both the Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords.

Jul 29, 2013 at 11:34AM EDT
Quote

Palestinian leaders don’t want peace. They want to rid the world of Jews. They don’t give a damn about peace negotiations. Hamas’ agenda is of Islamic jihad. This is common knowledge, spelled out in their charter: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” They can claim that the charter isn’t relevant anymore but we all know that’s just a political move to get people to take them seriously. It’s not even about Israel to Hamas; it’s about Jews and about Jerusalem.
Israel isn’t without fault either. They’ve done terrible things too, I’m not denying that. But their agenda is peaceful, and as such is preferable to the violent, hate-fueled agenda of Hamas.

Last edited Jul 29, 2013 at 11:48AM EDT
Jul 29, 2013 at 11:47AM EDT
Quote

Maromi wrote:

Palestinian leaders don’t want peace. They want to rid the world of Jews. They don’t give a damn about peace negotiations. Hamas’ agenda is of Islamic jihad. This is common knowledge, spelled out in their charter: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” They can claim that the charter isn’t relevant anymore but we all know that’s just a political move to get people to take them seriously. It’s not even about Israel to Hamas; it’s about Jews and about Jerusalem.
Israel isn’t without fault either. They’ve done terrible things too, I’m not denying that. But their agenda is peaceful, and as such is preferable to the violent, hate-fueled agenda of Hamas.

Israel’s agenda is not peaceful, Israel’s agenda is to exert its power over Palestine.

Try telling me how expanding settlements into Palestinian land is peaceful.

Jul 29, 2013 at 06:54PM EDT
Quote

Israel and Palestine, eh? Couldn’t we discuss a relatively non-controversial topic like abortion or gun rights?

Jul 29, 2013 at 07:27PM EDT
Quote

Katie C said:

Bombing hospitals is against the Geneva Conventions.

So is launching missiles at civilians, but I don’t see anyone bitching about that.

As for the peace talks. They’ll fail, just like they always do. Both sides will blame the other, the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine people will decry the terrorists and apartheidists and we’ll start this never ending ride all over again. Even if they succeeded, Hamas still controls the Gaza strip and with their whole “let’s finish what Hitler started” thing going on, it’s unlikely they’ll ever want peace with Israel.

The Arabs only have themselves to blame for this whole mess. Had they accepted the UN Partition Plan in 1948 instead of invading and getting their asses kicked, the biggest concern we’d have now-in-days is what kind of citizenship would someone have who was born in a UN territory.

Jul 29, 2013 at 07:52PM EDT
Quote

xTSXx wrote:

So is launching missiles at civilians, but I don’t see anyone bitching about that.

Well, to be fair, both sides have done that. A lot. Anyone who claims that the fault rests entirely with one side is misguided at best.

Honestly, I think the only possible resolution is a unified state, free of religion. Which is not exactly possible, at least not for several generations.

Jul 29, 2013 at 08:38PM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

Israel and Palestine, eh? Couldn’t we discuss a relatively non-controversial topic like abortion or gun rights?

All women should have five- no, six abortions before they can give birth. All abortions performed with unregistered firearms of course.

Jul 29, 2013 at 10:53PM EDT
Quote

@JJ

Releasing hundreds of criminals is bad. Though at least you can say Israel is making an effort here. right?

Obviously Israel is eager enough to try and put a stop to fighting that they are willing to do whatever it takes, even if it means opening up prisons. Surely that counts for something. Just hope the negotiations lead to a supportable conclusions.


@Brucker

Israel and Palestine, eh? Couldn’t we discuss a relatively non-controversial topic like abortion or gun rights?

I know right? Discussions on Israel/Palestine is one of the most polarised topics

The problem I see is that people are quick to accuse one side or the other of being the victim/perpetrator.

Those people (some of which are in this thread, not saying any names) are misguided. The conflict has been going on for so long that it’s impossible to say who is just; given all the crimes committed on both ends. Both sides say they are innocent victims while the other is trying to kill them. They are both correct to be frank

Whenever the internet tries to argue this subject, I must ask of it: Are you an Israeli? Are you a palestinian? Have you talked to any? No? Then don’t pretend to be so informed.

JJ is an israeli. He’s the most credible source at the moment. He experiences exactly what’s happening over there. If he’s terrified of Palestinian militants vowing to slaughter him and his entire family for being jewish, I’d say he has good reasons

Jul 29, 2013 at 11:04PM EDT
Quote
Anyone who claims that the fault rests entirely with one side is misguided at best.

Sorry, that’s just wrong. The fault rests entirely, 100% with the Arabs. There is nothing close to moral equivalence here.

The local Jews are the aboriginals. The immigrant Jews bought their land. The Jews obtained the state land from the Ottomans through treaty, by way of the British and the League of Nations, and they established a nontheistic state with equal rights for everybody.

The Arabs are fighting to reconquer the land for Islam and establish Shari’a. Read the Palestinian constitution if you don’t believe me. Their claim to the land is that they really really hate the Jews so much that they will never recognize that the Jews have a right to anything. This extends to rewriting history so that all of the ancient Jewish kings are said to have been Arabs and the trivial debate over where Mohammed may have hitched Buraq during his night flight to Jerusalem became a matter of great importance to say it was the Western Wall so that Muslims could be greatly offended by the fact that Jews are allowed to pray there. They reject all treaties made with Israel under the theory that “Arab land cannot be bought or sold” in the words of Faisal al-Husseini, meaning that if one Arab state makes a treaty with Israel, any other Arabs may go to war to obtain whatever the other Arabs had ceded. This is how they ignore the 1994 treaty that ceded the West Bank, in its entirety, to Israel. The split between the Palestinians and Hamas is over 1) whether Islam permits them to pretend to be a secular progressive movement to get sympathy and support from outsiders, 2) whether the Jews should be made dhimmi or simply killed, and chiefly 3) who in particular gets the spoils after they win the war.

The idea of the Arabs being a “Palestinian people” was invented in the late 1960s and became popular because it was the official Soviet party line through the 1970s. Before this bit of Cold War geostrategy, Palestine was the Jewish homeland and a Palestinian was anyone who lived there; and before WWI the latter term was a synonym for Jew. The words had been unused for a generation which made them sufficiently archaic for the new generation to allow the Arabs to steal these old terms for the Jewish identity. Calling themselves “Palestinian” or Israel “Palestine” is just another way for the Arabs to show how much they hate the Jews that they refuse to recognize the current Jewish name for the country. It deserves as much disgust as one would give to any white person who still calls Zimbabwe “Rhodesia” and insists that only whites should be allowed to live there.

Fun fact: when the Palestinians were first formed in 1964, they explicitly renounced all claim to the West Bank. Why did they do that? Because other Muslim Arabs had already conquered this land from the Jews. Why do they claim the land now? Because Jordan invaded Israel again in 1967 and Israel took the land back in the ensuing war.

The Arab regime discourages peace in more ways than simply celebrating war. Any Arab who has a Jewish friend over for tea will soon have a visit from armed men to discourage him from having Jewish friends. Selling land to a Jew merits the death penalty. Trading with Jews is strongly discouraged because it could lead to normalization. Exceptions are granted if the activity can be said to advance the war effort or else upon payment of a sufficient bribe. If it sounds like the mafia, nope; these are the people we (the USA) put in charge of the Arabs and gave extra guns and money. They’re the official government now.

This is what Israel is up against: a totalitarian society where speaking out for peace can get you shot, a manufactured culture whose sole reason for existence is to wage a racist war against the Jews while the list of legitimate Arab grievances against Israel stands at zero. On the other hand, Israel remains a secular liberal society with equal rights for all, where Jewish children are taught to respect the Arabs even after all that they’ve been through for the past 100 years. They are not both wrong and it is not impossible to say who is right if one would bother to read some old history books and Arab position statements from over the decades. The Arab-Israeli conflict is about as far as one can get from a situation where both sides are at fault.

Honestly, I think the only possible resolution is a unified state, free of religion. Which is not exactly possible, at least not for several generations.

Funny, that is what the situation was before the Palestinians were allowed into Israel and put in charge of the Arab cities in 1993. That was supposed to be the solution that would lead to peace. Now there is a generation of Arabs that have been raised to see themselves as Palestinian rather than Israeli or Jordanian. It will indeed take several generations to undo that, and any potential peacemaker would have to first establish sufficient control of the Arab cities to keep the movement for war from reasserting itself and killing any peaceful administrator. There is no chance of that happening while any potential agreement will keep the movement for war in total control of Arab society.

Jul 30, 2013 at 01:20AM EDT
Quote

I say the USA and the EU get together and tell both sides to stop this shit, and they’ll stop it if they know what’s good for them.

Jul 30, 2013 at 01:56AM EDT
Quote

@Dr.Coolface

Isn’t that what has been happening for the past several decades? They won’t stop. Certainly not on behalf of any western demands

Jul 30, 2013 at 02:58AM EDT
Quote

opspe said:

Honestly, I think the only possible resolution is a unified state, free of religion. Which is not exactly possible, at least not for several generations.

Personally, I think the only viable plan is a modified version of the UN Partition, with Israel joining NATO to get them to accept pre-1967 boundaries (or boundaries similar to those).

Jul 30, 2013 at 06:37AM EDT
Quote
This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

Katie C. wrote:

Israel’s agenda is not peaceful, Israel’s agenda is to exert its power over Palestine.

Try telling me how expanding settlements into Palestinian land is peaceful.

Islamists aren’t peaceful.
Islamists like Hamas are just trying to be good at Islam(their version of Islam which probably includes Wahabism) by following their prophet Muhammad(Cherry picking the parts they want to follow).
No such thing as Palestinian land Jews were there first. Just like how Uighurs aren’t native to Xinjiang. Islamists are one of the world’s greatest liars claiming to be “native”.
Israel should deal with the Islamists the same way the Buddhists vigilantes in Myanmar do.
You want to help people being occupied? Go protest against Turkey for occupying Cyprus. Go protest Indonesia for occupying West Papua.

Jul 30, 2013 at 08:25AM EDT

wn12345 wrote:

Islamists aren’t peaceful.
Islamists like Hamas are just trying to be good at Islam(their version of Islam which probably includes Wahabism) by following their prophet Muhammad(Cherry picking the parts they want to follow).
No such thing as Palestinian land Jews were there first. Just like how Uighurs aren’t native to Xinjiang. Islamists are one of the world’s greatest liars claiming to be “native”.
Israel should deal with the Islamists the same way the Buddhists vigilantes in Myanmar do.
You want to help people being occupied? Go protest against Turkey for occupying Cyprus. Go protest Indonesia for occupying West Papua.

“Israel should deal with the Islamists the same way the Buddhists vigilantes in Myanmar do.”

Get the fuck out you fascist.

Jul 30, 2013 at 03:02PM EDT
Quote

Katie C. said:

Get the fuck out you fascist.

>2013
>calling someone a fascist

“Fascist” is rapidly becoming the new “faggot”. i.e. it’s being used so much, it’s losing any of the insult value it once had.

You really can’t deny that Muslims do have a tendency for religious wars. Conquest of Persia in the 700’s, the Byzantine Empire in the 1200’s, their invasion of Europe was only checked by the Siege of Vienna and Battle of Tours, Armenian genocide (which included other Christian groups), the obvious Arab-Israeli clusterfuck, Indonesian occupation of East Timor, ongoing rebellions in Chechnya, the Philippians, and Thailand.

Jul 30, 2013 at 04:44PM EDT
Quote

Katie C. wrote:

“Israel should deal with the Islamists the same way the Buddhists vigilantes in Myanmar do.”

Get the fuck out you fascist.

Rude.

Jul 30, 2013 at 04:56PM EDT
Quote

it’s more to do with mismanagement than anything else. when you have a xenophobic group that acts as ‘the voice of the people’ then anything and everything can go wrong. especially when that group can force its way into power irrespective of circumstance.

Jul 30, 2013 at 05:31PM EDT
Quote

wn12345 wrote:

Wirathu speaks out against islamist controlled media.

the united states is the last place i would say is controlled by “islamist controlled media”. just because a magazine has a different opinion on the matter doesn’t mean there’s some kind of conspiracy.

i find it amazing how the burmese government wants to defend him while he incites others to burn down the houses and kill muslims in burma.

“time magazine’s cover portrayed buddism in association with terrorism”
- Ye Htut

well, maybe if there wasn’t a buddist monk preaching the same things as abu hamza (kill others that aren’t of your belief, boycott anything related to them) then Time would not have posted that. only recently was that asshat removed form the UK, and it took so long because nobody wanted him in their country

“We would like to be like EDL. Not carrying out violence, but protecting the public.” Source

well then, let’s have a look at the EDL.

EDL members attacked and threw fireworks at a group of people protesting against the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. They were also filmed giving Nazi salutes.
Two men have each been sentenced to 10 years in prison after being found guilty of deliberately setting fire to a Stoke-on-Trent mosque.
TAXPAYERS face an eyewatering bill of more than half-a-million pounds after the latest English Defence League (EDL) protest in Dudley.
Ex EDL members targeted Hartlepool mosque and Shotton Colliery store

these are the people you are comparing yourself to. do you see why Time magazine said you were the face of terror? the EDL do NOT protect the people, they protect their ideals. black and asian people are not a part of that ideal.

tl;dr – you don’t solve extremism and terrorism by using more extremism and terrorism. the term “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” does not work for a problem like this

Jul 31, 2013 at 05:35AM EDT
Quote

xTSGx wrote:

Katie C. said:

Get the fuck out you fascist.

>2013
>calling someone a fascist

“Fascist” is rapidly becoming the new “faggot”. i.e. it’s being used so much, it’s losing any of the insult value it once had.

You really can’t deny that Muslims do have a tendency for religious wars. Conquest of Persia in the 700’s, the Byzantine Empire in the 1200’s, their invasion of Europe was only checked by the Siege of Vienna and Battle of Tours, Armenian genocide (which included other Christian groups), the obvious Arab-Israeli clusterfuck, Indonesian occupation of East Timor, ongoing rebellions in Chechnya, the Philippians, and Thailand.

Over in Myanmar, the Rohingya Muslim minority is oppressed, lives in poverty, and they are slaughtered in the name of Buddhism.

ALL RELIGIONS have their share of genocide. However, for a government in power to condone and sometimes even participate in the slaughter of a helpless minority is hardly ok because other Muslims in other eras and today do bad things.

I didn’t call him a fascist because I couldn’t come up with anything creative. I called him a fascist because it was correct. That’s just the way it is.

Was I abrasive? Yeah. I’m honestly a passionate anti-racist.

Jul 31, 2013 at 06:53AM EDT
Quote

GoingMenthol wrote:

the united states is the last place i would say is controlled by “islamist controlled media”. just because a magazine has a different opinion on the matter doesn’t mean there’s some kind of conspiracy.

i find it amazing how the burmese government wants to defend him while he incites others to burn down the houses and kill muslims in burma.

“time magazine’s cover portrayed buddism in association with terrorism”
- Ye Htut

well, maybe if there wasn’t a buddist monk preaching the same things as abu hamza (kill others that aren’t of your belief, boycott anything related to them) then Time would not have posted that. only recently was that asshat removed form the UK, and it took so long because nobody wanted him in their country

“We would like to be like EDL. Not carrying out violence, but protecting the public.” Source

well then, let’s have a look at the EDL.

EDL members attacked and threw fireworks at a group of people protesting against the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. They were also filmed giving Nazi salutes.
Two men have each been sentenced to 10 years in prison after being found guilty of deliberately setting fire to a Stoke-on-Trent mosque.
TAXPAYERS face an eyewatering bill of more than half-a-million pounds after the latest English Defence League (EDL) protest in Dudley.
Ex EDL members targeted Hartlepool mosque and Shotton Colliery store

these are the people you are comparing yourself to. do you see why Time magazine said you were the face of terror? the EDL do NOT protect the people, they protect their ideals. black and asian people are not a part of that ideal.

tl;dr – you don’t solve extremism and terrorism by using more extremism and terrorism. the term “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” does not work for a problem like this

What you are doing is generalizing all the members of the 969 movement and the EDL based on a few stereotypes. I do not know much about the EDL but their leader has made some very good points about islamists. By the way you should find out what sparked the EDL’s creation.

I do not agree with everything the leaders of the EDL and 969 movement say but I can’t deny they made good points about radical islam.

I am sure alot of people here would consider the PLO, Fatah and/or Hamas as freedom fighters.

Likewise I have my own opinions and if I “compare”/admire people that are against islamism then that’s my own opinion. If people here support the PLO, Fatah and/or Hamas then why can’t I support groups like the EDL, 969 movement, the militias opposing islamist invasions in Maluku, West Papua, Cyprus etc…
(note I do not support any of the groups I listed I just share some of their opinions on islamism)
I do not support violence committed by any groups but how would you feel if the country you are in is invaded by an islamic country? How would you feel is there is an islamic insurgency in your country? How would you feel if there is islamic terrorism in your country? What would you have done?

I have not seen the media refer to the islamist insurgency in Myanmar much. Yes there are many conflicts in Myanmar but this one has islamists having links with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And the islamists in this conflict have been purposely spreading religious hatred. This islamist conflict alone could have provided justification for the 969 movement and their actions.

Jul 31, 2013 at 07:25AM EDT

wn12345 wrote:

What you are doing is generalizing all the members of the 969 movement and the EDL based on a few stereotypes. I do not know much about the EDL but their leader has made some very good points about islamists. By the way you should find out what sparked the EDL’s creation.

I do not agree with everything the leaders of the EDL and 969 movement say but I can’t deny they made good points about radical islam.

I am sure alot of people here would consider the PLO, Fatah and/or Hamas as freedom fighters.

Likewise I have my own opinions and if I “compare”/admire people that are against islamism then that’s my own opinion. If people here support the PLO, Fatah and/or Hamas then why can’t I support groups like the EDL, 969 movement, the militias opposing islamist invasions in Maluku, West Papua, Cyprus etc…
(note I do not support any of the groups I listed I just share some of their opinions on islamism)
I do not support violence committed by any groups but how would you feel if the country you are in is invaded by an islamic country? How would you feel is there is an islamic insurgency in your country? How would you feel if there is islamic terrorism in your country? What would you have done?

I have not seen the media refer to the islamist insurgency in Myanmar much. Yes there are many conflicts in Myanmar but this one has islamists having links with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And the islamists in this conflict have been purposely spreading religious hatred. This islamist conflict alone could have provided justification for the 969 movement and their actions.

“How would you feel if there is islamic terrorism in your country? What would you have done?”

there was islamic terrorism where i live (United Kingdom, specifically London). it was the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 2007 London car bombs. just to name a few.

what did i do?

nothing.

it is the task of the police, military and the government to prevent incidents from occurring and bringing justice to those who commit such crimes. not the general public.

it’s not my job to join a vigilante group and attack others who aren’t a part of the problem. i’ve seen with my own eyes a group of skinheads smashing asian owned shops and beating up any asians who were wearing traditional muslim clothes after the 9/11 attack. regular people on the streets, being beaten so badly that they need to be hospitalised, just because of another person’s actions. and yet, some call this ‘fair’ and ‘justified’, as if they have the right to enforce these actions because of the actions of others who live thousands of miles away.

“If people here support the PLO, Fatah and/or Hamas then why can’t I support groups like the EDL, 969 movement, the militias opposing islamist invasions in Maluku, West Papua, Cyprus etc…”

there’s a problem with all groups that find it justified to bully and attack others indiscriminately. i personally don’t believe it’s a right thing to side with one extreme just because people of another extreme are being idiots. i, personally, will not stoop to another person’s low standards and hurt others who are not involved or associated with criminals.

if you want to solve the real problem, join the army and go fight the taliban themselves. don’t bully a 50-60 year old man because of what he wears and where his faith lies.

I do not agree with everything the leaders of the EDL and 969 movement say but I can’t deny they made good points about radical islam.

and yet their actions are targeted at any muslim nearby, similar to how muslim extremists target others indiscriminately, even muslims who do not hold the same ideals as they do. just like the EDL members attacking british people who opposed celebrating the queen’s jubilee.

when you align yourself under the name of an organisation, be it political or religious, you inadvertently represent it. if one church is found to do unlawful acts to minors, all churches are looked down upon. if two muslim men on the street kill a british soldier, other muslims get the blame. hell, if there was a murder on your street, your car insurance premium goes up because of it, for no fault of your own.

By the way you should find out what sparked the EDL’s creation

The EDL originated from a group known as the “United Peoples of Luton”. This was a response to a demonstration, organised by Al-Muhajiroun, against the war in Afghanistan as the Royal Anglian Regiment marched through the town after a tour of duty in the Helmand province campaign. The EDL evolved from the football casual subculture and is loosely organised around figures in hooligan firms. When the Luton counter-demonstration led to arrests, local football supporters, using social networking websites, collaborated with other football casual groups, including those associated with hooliganism.

Since its foundation the principal activity of the EDL has been street demonstrations. In the main these have involved counter demonstrations, violence and frequent arrests.
- wiki

so, the EDL began as small football group, made a counter protest against a terrorist group, associated themselves with hooligans, and now partake in violent protests leading to arrests of its members.

so they started with the best intentions and now cause more of a problem than solve. sounds exactly like how i thought it would be.

Last edited Jul 31, 2013 at 08:51AM EDT
Jul 31, 2013 at 08:49AM EDT
Quote

Not Caramel wrote:

I’ve missed your threads, Jolly.

… oh wow, i never thought anyone would say something like that… im falltered…

as for the topic.

the posts at the start of the thread are really discomforing. israel is constantly bombing the palastinans? wtf? anyone who claims that obviously doesn’t know anything about the conflict.

first of all, it is the arabs who committed the terrorism and atrocoties, in the early 2000’s a suicde bomber blew up in jerusalem ALMOST EVERY DAY
in the late 2000’s all the towns in the gaza strip were under constant barrage of Kasam rockets, aimed exclusivly at civillian targets
and after israel decided to withdraw from the gaza strip whilst kicking 10,000 people outo f their homes, the rocket attacks actually became EVEN WORSE to the point when people are afraid to go out to the streets and schools were closed for WEEKS.

and after all that you still claim it’s israel who is the war criminal?

guess how all of the above ended? the blockade, the checkpoints and the firece retalliations that you so much protested about.
so check your facts before you spew garbage at good people.

do you think israel has fun holding this expensive army and having to tightly gaurd Jehuda and Semaria? no, israel would happily withdraw their army if the palastinans would promise to stop all the bloodshed and live in peace.

and about the settlers. they didn’t steal anyone’s land, it’s a blatant lie. every piece of land they build their homes on are payed with very good money, those who don’t get kicked out with extreme prejetuice by the israeli goverment itself.

so in reality, living in an indepandant autonomy is something very possible if the palastininas would just put their hatred and nationalist fanatism aside.

but instead we have peace negotiations that could only start by realsing over a hundered CONVITED MURDERERS.

it baffles me to no end how some people here can’t see the absordity in this, they are not captured soldiers they are criminal scum of the worst sort.

do you really think anything good can come when peace negotion start off with the release of serial killers? no one sees how it completly contridicts the ideas of peace negotiations in the first place?

(im surprised i didn’t get karma bombed, last time i tried to defend my country had very painful results so thanks for that)

Last edited Jul 31, 2013 at 05:02PM EDT
Jul 31, 2013 at 05:00PM EDT
Quote

I usually don’t -1 in threads like this.

When I do it’s because there’s someone like wn12345 in the thread.

Jul 31, 2013 at 09:26PM EDT
Quote

Here’s an idea: Katie and wn12345 both stop posting in this thread to keep discussions calm and not to the point where it get to childish name calling.

Wn12345, your posts are clear attempts at simply shoehorning your anti-Muslim views. I don’t know what you have against Muslims, but it’s not helping us maintaining a reasonable discussion. Please take it elsewhere.

Katie, you’re being a childish idiot, there’s no better way to say it. The only reason you’re currently posting is to attack wn12345 and it’s not helping this thread. Checking the site rules will show you the following: “If you want to address a specific individual about personal matters, contact the user via private message instead of starting a public discussion.” Please follow that advice.

Last edited Jul 31, 2013 at 10:05PM EDT
Jul 31, 2013 at 10:05PM EDT
Quote

@wn12345

I am sure alot of people here would consider the PLO, Fatah and/or Hamas as freedom fighters.

I just want to point out that this is most certainly untrue. You won’t find anyone here supporting radical violent hate groups of any kind and the EDL are considered just as bad as the aforementioned parties

I strongly suggest you do not try to oppose violent vigilantes by supporting other violent vigilantes. That couldn’t be any more ill advised

Last edited Jul 31, 2013 at 11:55PM EDT
Jul 31, 2013 at 11:55PM EDT
Quote

Jolly Jew wrote:

… oh wow, i never thought anyone would say something like that… im falltered…

as for the topic.

the posts at the start of the thread are really discomforing. israel is constantly bombing the palastinans? wtf? anyone who claims that obviously doesn’t know anything about the conflict.

first of all, it is the arabs who committed the terrorism and atrocoties, in the early 2000’s a suicde bomber blew up in jerusalem ALMOST EVERY DAY
in the late 2000’s all the towns in the gaza strip were under constant barrage of Kasam rockets, aimed exclusivly at civillian targets
and after israel decided to withdraw from the gaza strip whilst kicking 10,000 people outo f their homes, the rocket attacks actually became EVEN WORSE to the point when people are afraid to go out to the streets and schools were closed for WEEKS.

and after all that you still claim it’s israel who is the war criminal?

guess how all of the above ended? the blockade, the checkpoints and the firece retalliations that you so much protested about.
so check your facts before you spew garbage at good people.

do you think israel has fun holding this expensive army and having to tightly gaurd Jehuda and Semaria? no, israel would happily withdraw their army if the palastinans would promise to stop all the bloodshed and live in peace.

and about the settlers. they didn’t steal anyone’s land, it’s a blatant lie. every piece of land they build their homes on are payed with very good money, those who don’t get kicked out with extreme prejetuice by the israeli goverment itself.

so in reality, living in an indepandant autonomy is something very possible if the palastininas would just put their hatred and nationalist fanatism aside.

but instead we have peace negotiations that could only start by realsing over a hundered CONVITED MURDERERS.

it baffles me to no end how some people here can’t see the absordity in this, they are not captured soldiers they are criminal scum of the worst sort.

do you really think anything good can come when peace negotion start off with the release of serial killers? no one sees how it completly contridicts the ideas of peace negotiations in the first place?

(im surprised i didn’t get karma bombed, last time i tried to defend my country had very painful results so thanks for that)

If the Israeli government is going to release Islamist terrorists then I would think it would be fair to release the right wing jewish political activists that are retaliating against the islamist terrorists.
I do not see the point in expanding settlements though all it will do is anger the islamists and cause more islamist terrorism.
As this islamist here thinks once a piece of land becomes islamic it stays islamic.
I understand that the settlers(Why are they called settlers? They are native to the land they are settling in) have every right to settle in their own land but you got to give(mostly) and take with the islamists.

@RandomMan
I am anti-islamist not anti-muslim.

Aug 01, 2013 at 03:59AM EDT
wn12345 wrote: I am anti-islamist not anti-muslim.

You claim to not be anti-muslim and yet you think Buddhist vigilantes are in the right for denying basic human rights and engaging in the destruction of person and property against a minority group because you think that every one of them are terrorists. You then complain about someone else generalizing members of the 969 Movement and the EDL. I’m calling bullshit.

Almost every single post that you’ve made on this site has been to push your anti-Muslim views. And that’s what I’m going to call it because at this point, regardless of the rhetoric you’ve said in order to justify your hatred, I’m not seeing the difference between anti-Muslim and “anti-Islamist.” You’ve only posted when there is a good chance that you can shoehorn those views into the topic that’s being discussed at the time and have been inactive when there aren’t any such topics available. Just what are you trying to accomplish?

Last edited Aug 01, 2013 at 08:34AM EDT
Aug 01, 2013 at 08:28AM EDT
Quote

level4outbreak wrote:

wn12345 wrote: I am anti-islamist not anti-muslim.

You claim to not be anti-muslim and yet you think Buddhist vigilantes are in the right for denying basic human rights and engaging in the destruction of person and property against a minority group because you think that every one of them are terrorists. You then complain about someone else generalizing members of the 969 Movement and the EDL. I’m calling bullshit.

Almost every single post that you’ve made on this site has been to push your anti-Muslim views. And that’s what I’m going to call it because at this point, regardless of the rhetoric you’ve said in order to justify your hatred, I’m not seeing the difference between anti-Muslim and “anti-Islamist.” You’ve only posted when there is a good chance that you can shoehorn those views into the topic that’s being discussed at the time and have been inactive when there aren’t any such topics available. Just what are you trying to accomplish?

In one of my previous post I posted something about an islamist insurgency in Myanmar and in the link you can see the islamist terrorists linked to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and they have been killing civilians and spreading religious hatred.
I do not think it is a good idea to go and kill muslim civilians to retaliate against islamist terrorism but the 969 movement certainly do have the excuse of retaliation in my opinion.

There is a difference between anti-islamist and anti-muslim. I am against islamism not muslims. However I also question the islam religion and that can sometimes overlap with anti-islam(not anti-muslim).
Just like there is a difference between anti-zionist and anti-semitism.
@Jolly Jew
Regarding “for the record, i don’t recall jews intentionally murdering ANYONE be considered as heroes”
I think there are some jews who do consider Baruch Goldstein as a hero. But I think Baruch Goldstein did have his reasons for doing what he did. I disagree with what Baruch Goldstein did though.

Last edited Aug 01, 2013 at 09:03AM EDT
Aug 01, 2013 at 09:02AM EDT

wn12345 wrote:

I am anti-islamist not anti-muslim.

I don’t really give a shit. Point remains that you’re anti-something to a point that it’s becoming a bother for the discussion because your only goal is shoehorning your own believes.

KYM is not the type of site for the type of believes you’re trying to run here, and I will ask you again to take it elsewhere, like sites who are more like that. Stop being so tsun-tsun bro, muslim-senpai~ surely will notice you someday.

Aug 01, 2013 at 09:28AM EDT
Quote

WarriorTang wrote:

Anyone who claims that the fault rests entirely with one side is misguided at best.

Sorry, that’s just wrong. The fault rests entirely, 100% with the Arabs. There is nothing close to moral equivalence here.

The local Jews are the aboriginals. The immigrant Jews bought their land. The Jews obtained the state land from the Ottomans through treaty, by way of the British and the League of Nations, and they established a nontheistic state with equal rights for everybody.

The Arabs are fighting to reconquer the land for Islam and establish Shari’a. Read the Palestinian constitution if you don’t believe me. Their claim to the land is that they really really hate the Jews so much that they will never recognize that the Jews have a right to anything. This extends to rewriting history so that all of the ancient Jewish kings are said to have been Arabs and the trivial debate over where Mohammed may have hitched Buraq during his night flight to Jerusalem became a matter of great importance to say it was the Western Wall so that Muslims could be greatly offended by the fact that Jews are allowed to pray there. They reject all treaties made with Israel under the theory that “Arab land cannot be bought or sold” in the words of Faisal al-Husseini, meaning that if one Arab state makes a treaty with Israel, any other Arabs may go to war to obtain whatever the other Arabs had ceded. This is how they ignore the 1994 treaty that ceded the West Bank, in its entirety, to Israel. The split between the Palestinians and Hamas is over 1) whether Islam permits them to pretend to be a secular progressive movement to get sympathy and support from outsiders, 2) whether the Jews should be made dhimmi or simply killed, and chiefly 3) who in particular gets the spoils after they win the war.

The idea of the Arabs being a “Palestinian people” was invented in the late 1960s and became popular because it was the official Soviet party line through the 1970s. Before this bit of Cold War geostrategy, Palestine was the Jewish homeland and a Palestinian was anyone who lived there; and before WWI the latter term was a synonym for Jew. The words had been unused for a generation which made them sufficiently archaic for the new generation to allow the Arabs to steal these old terms for the Jewish identity. Calling themselves “Palestinian” or Israel “Palestine” is just another way for the Arabs to show how much they hate the Jews that they refuse to recognize the current Jewish name for the country. It deserves as much disgust as one would give to any white person who still calls Zimbabwe “Rhodesia” and insists that only whites should be allowed to live there.

Fun fact: when the Palestinians were first formed in 1964, they explicitly renounced all claim to the West Bank. Why did they do that? Because other Muslim Arabs had already conquered this land from the Jews. Why do they claim the land now? Because Jordan invaded Israel again in 1967 and Israel took the land back in the ensuing war.

The Arab regime discourages peace in more ways than simply celebrating war. Any Arab who has a Jewish friend over for tea will soon have a visit from armed men to discourage him from having Jewish friends. Selling land to a Jew merits the death penalty. Trading with Jews is strongly discouraged because it could lead to normalization. Exceptions are granted if the activity can be said to advance the war effort or else upon payment of a sufficient bribe. If it sounds like the mafia, nope; these are the people we (the USA) put in charge of the Arabs and gave extra guns and money. They’re the official government now.

This is what Israel is up against: a totalitarian society where speaking out for peace can get you shot, a manufactured culture whose sole reason for existence is to wage a racist war against the Jews while the list of legitimate Arab grievances against Israel stands at zero. On the other hand, Israel remains a secular liberal society with equal rights for all, where Jewish children are taught to respect the Arabs even after all that they’ve been through for the past 100 years. They are not both wrong and it is not impossible to say who is right if one would bother to read some old history books and Arab position statements from over the decades. The Arab-Israeli conflict is about as far as one can get from a situation where both sides are at fault.

Honestly, I think the only possible resolution is a unified state, free of religion. Which is not exactly possible, at least not for several generations.

Funny, that is what the situation was before the Palestinians were allowed into Israel and put in charge of the Arab cities in 1993. That was supposed to be the solution that would lead to peace. Now there is a generation of Arabs that have been raised to see themselves as Palestinian rather than Israeli or Jordanian. It will indeed take several generations to undo that, and any potential peacemaker would have to first establish sufficient control of the Arab cities to keep the movement for war from reasserting itself and killing any peaceful administrator. There is no chance of that happening while any potential agreement will keep the movement for war in total control of Arab society.

Protip: In 1922, only 11% of the population in Palestine was Jewish.

By 1945, that number rose to 31%.

Another Protip: The Ottomans did not give land to the Jews. It became a British mandate through the League of Nations after the Ottoman Empire was eliminated.

Yet another protip: Muslims moved into the region in the year 636. Sorry, they’ve been there a millenia and a half, not just a few decades.

Aug 01, 2013 at 12:47PM EDT
Quote

Katie C. wrote:

Protip: In 1922, only 11% of the population in Palestine was Jewish.

By 1945, that number rose to 31%.

Another Protip: The Ottomans did not give land to the Jews. It became a British mandate through the League of Nations after the Ottoman Empire was eliminated.

Yet another protip: Muslims moved into the region in the year 636. Sorry, they’ve been there a millenia and a half, not just a few decades.

Exactly. The Jews were persecuted, but to have land of their own they displaced another group of people. I’d say that the Palestinians have a right to be angry, but not the right to do zealous things like defend war criminals in an effort to get their land back, which IMO is not nearly the worst thing either side has done in this conflict.

Aug 01, 2013 at 02:16PM EDT
Quote

Sir Crona Statscowski Esquire wrote:

Exactly. The Jews were persecuted, but to have land of their own they displaced another group of people. I’d say that the Palestinians have a right to be angry, but not the right to do zealous things like defend war criminals in an effort to get their land back, which IMO is not nearly the worst thing either side has done in this conflict.

I’d say that it comes down to this.

Israel: 4th largest military in the world, successful economy

Palestine: No military, terrible economy, almost no infrastructure, unable to travel.

So I’d like to use this as an opportunity to say that I’m not siding with terrorists, I’m siding with the men and women and children that are trying to feed themselves and live in peace, but they can’t do that.

Aug 01, 2013 at 05:01PM EDT
Quote

Sir Crona Statscowski Esquire wrote:

Exactly. The Jews were persecuted, but to have land of their own they displaced another group of people. I’d say that the Palestinians have a right to be angry, but not the right to do zealous things like defend war criminals in an effort to get their land back, which IMO is not nearly the worst thing either side has done in this conflict.

Sorry but talking about displacing I think it is the arab islamists who have displaced the jews first.
The arab islamists also killed the jews first before the jews started fighting back.
Here
are
some
examples.

Last edited Aug 01, 2013 at 07:29PM EDT
Aug 01, 2013 at 07:26PM EDT

wn12345 wrote:

Sorry but talking about displacing I think it is the arab islamists who have displaced the jews first.
The arab islamists also killed the jews first before the jews started fighting back.
Here
are
some
examples.

If we’re talking about “who displaced Jews first”, it wasn’t “Arab Islamists”. The first displacement of the Jews happened in the 6th Century BCE when the Babylonian Empire conquered the Kingdom of Judah and were forcibly deported to the city of Babylon. After a while, the Persian Empire conquered the Babylonians and allowed the Jews to go back to their land.

The second displacement happened from 70 to 73 CE when the Romans crushed the Jews who rebelled against them, leading to the destruction of the Second Temple and many Jews subsequently being kicked out of the region.

I have a feeling that these historical events probably mean nothing to you because it doesn’t fit in with your views. However, these two events, especially the Destruction of the Second Temple, are often cited for why there should be a Jewish state. When I was at my synagogue’s Religious Classes, these two events and their connection to the Jews’ “right to their homeland” were stressed very heavily and very often. And there were no “Islamists” involved because Islam didn’t develop as a religion until about the 7th Century CE.

Aug 01, 2013 at 08:09PM EDT
Quote

level4outbreak wrote:

If we’re talking about “who displaced Jews first”, it wasn’t “Arab Islamists”. The first displacement of the Jews happened in the 6th Century BCE when the Babylonian Empire conquered the Kingdom of Judah and were forcibly deported to the city of Babylon. After a while, the Persian Empire conquered the Babylonians and allowed the Jews to go back to their land.

The second displacement happened from 70 to 73 CE when the Romans crushed the Jews who rebelled against them, leading to the destruction of the Second Temple and many Jews subsequently being kicked out of the region.

I have a feeling that these historical events probably mean nothing to you because it doesn’t fit in with your views. However, these two events, especially the Destruction of the Second Temple, are often cited for why there should be a Jewish state. When I was at my synagogue’s Religious Classes, these two events and their connection to the Jews’ “right to their homeland” were stressed very heavily and very often. And there were no “Islamists” involved because Islam didn’t develop as a religion until about the 7th Century CE.

What I meant was that the arab islamists wronged the jews before the jews “wronged” the arab islamists.

Last edited Aug 01, 2013 at 08:25PM EDT
Aug 01, 2013 at 08:19PM EDT

wn12345 wrote:

What I meant was that the arab islamists wronged the jews before the jews “wronged” the arab islamists.

Sorry but talking about displacing I think it is the arab islamists who have displaced the jews first.


My point is that the displacement of the Jews happened way before the “Arab Islamists” even came into the picture. Also, the incidents in the links talking about “teh EVUL” of Islam that you posted in your previous post didn’t even happen in the region that we consider Israel/Palestine (depending on your view). The only places mentioned in them are Mecca and Medina. Places where Jews would have ended up after being displaced by either the Babylonians or the Romans.

Aug 01, 2013 at 08:38PM EDT
Quote

wn12345 wrote:

What I meant was that the arab islamists wronged the jews before the jews “wronged” the arab islamists.

Oh? When was that?

The heavy Islamism is a new thing, it hasn’t been going on for very long, look at pictures of Iran and Afghanistan from a few decades ago and you’ll see what I mean.

Tehran in 1978

Also…

Aug 01, 2013 at 09:33PM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

This thread was locked by an administrator.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Greetings! You must login or signup first!