Im useing the bible as a peice of historical referance.

Muslism's didnt even come into jerusalem until around 600 ad.
http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ee31.htm

Myths of the Middle East
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html

Did you ever read about any Muslims being at Christ, crusifiction? No. Who was in Jerusalem during the time Pontius Pilate was the Roman procurator of Judea for 10 years, who was his oppisiton? Not muslims but jews.

Bah, I think historical land ownership is as dumb as basing it off of beliefs. The fact is that countries change and borders change but people are always stupid. Israel had its little chunk cut out for itself shortly after WWII (if I'm remembering correctly) and lived relatively peacefully for awhile. The arabs got pissy, did a massive and simultaneous invasion and nearly annihilated Israel. Except that Israel apparently has some serious badasses in its military and turned the tables, kicking the shit out of the invaders (Jordan, Egypt, some others I think) and ended up not only winning (after a few days) but ended up taking over territory. Which is now gaza and west bank and whatnot.

So....is this Jewish land? It is now. It's not even like the Israelies started the conflict...that was perpetrated by arab nations attemption to annihilate Israel. IMO, fuck the palestinians... someone should open a border or three and push all the pissy ones into Jordan or Lebanon or something.

Of course, that's pretty politically incorrect, and it'll never happen, but screw it. If there were American Indians blowing up bombs around my country, trying to get us to vacate their land, I'd maintain the same attitude. We took your shit fair and square, suck it up or move out.

As Satis says, it's not a matter of "who was there first", the indians (or Native Americans) can probably tell you more about that.
Since the Islam is a younger religion than christianity, it's rather logical that the Muslims got in Jerusalem later. Btw i'm not what you would call an expert on religion, but a lot of christian aspects return in the islam. Like Jesus is part of the koran as well, only he's a profet in the eyes of a muslim, and not the messias.

Anyway the Middle East is a big mess.

On a side note, the "we took it, now suck it up or move out" attitude doesn't work very well if you don't have good 'backup'. Ask Saddam for instance, when he took Kuwait, you could say 'he took it fair and square'. But that goes against the economic interests of the rest of the world. So he got kicked back out of it.

If America was allied with the Palestinians for example, i don't think the occupation of palestinian territory (gaza etc.) would have lasted long.
So an important matter is "who's with you and who's not".

indeed...it's all a matter of who has the might. If Saddam had the capability of retaining Kuwait...well....Kuwait would've been his. But he didn't. So he doesn't.

However, the Palestinians don't have the muscle to take back their own lands. They're fighting their 'insurgency' which only makes their own situation endlessly worse. What they need to do is either capitulate and try a non-violent approach toward their ends, or they need to get the hell out. The only thing they're doing now is breeding hatred on both sides, which will never turn out good for anyone involved.

Personally, I have no problem with any native americans I've ever met. Most are pretty cool, and pretty much none give a shit that the US belonged to their ancestors. They treat us as equals, we treat them as equals, everyone's happy. When you get the stupid crap like what's going on in the middle east, though, nothing will ever get resolved. I'm sure jews and palestinians will be blowing each other to pieces for decades, if not centuries.

True, i think hatred is so deep already that peaceful solutions will be nearly impossible. Well perhaps they'll come to a peace agreement (again ..) but some people won't quit.
But that's nothing new: Basks seperatists, nord-irish freedom fighters, .., the problem is getting the majority on the good side.

If only we could clone Hitler and brainwash him to hate Muslims instead of Jews our problems would be solved.......


IM JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Back to the topic. I know I said this a long time ago and got heat from a lot of you but Ill say it again.

There will never be any peace until there is victory. Either Israel destroys Palestine or vice versa.

Only through victory is their peace.

I don't agree on that saying 'an sich', but in this case (seeing the decennia of hatred, mutual killings etc.) it might be the only solution indeed. But it's not a very humane solution, so i highly doubt it will ever come to that.

Although when i think about it, it's not just limited to hatred amongst 2 countries here, but religion plays a big role as well. SO if you get rid of the palestinians for example, i can imagine that the arab world will be pissed. And you just kinda relocate the problem.

Bah can't we just shoot them all into space?

how about we abolish religion and murder all their children?

Lol...sounds like a plan. That's why I think Atatürk is one of the greatest statesmen ever. If anyone wants more info about him, just ask. Or use the internet yourselves, lazy asses.


The founding of the state of Israel is a complicated matter...In "short": there were no jews (well, maybe like 3 of 'em) left in Palestine, a century and a half ago. Because of a combination of factors (anti-semitism in europe, the myth of the return to the promised land, geo-political reasons) jews started to settle in Palestine, which was under Turkish authority then. Because of their know-how and financial solidity their community growed fast and prospered. (also marked by Herzl (sp?) and his declaration) During WW1 the British conquer Palestine on the Turks, with the support of the Jewish community there, promising them their Homeland and so on.

Palestine becomes a protectorate/colony/something to the Brits, who looked favorable upon the Jewish, who from then on migrated in huge numbers. Their power grew, which obviosuly did not appeal to the 'actual', Arab inhabitants of Palestina. That resulted in a lot of fighting and the British were forced to lose their plan to 'simply' divide Palestina in a Jewish and an Arab part. Meanwhile WW2 had broken out, and even more jews with even more skills and know-how migrated to Palestine. The Arabs revolted against the British, but they were poorly equipped and organized and were beaten.

The British wanted to put the Arab majority in control of Palestine with the Jews as some sort of state-in-state in palestine. But after WW2 the British could and would not longer manage Palestine and the UN took over, dividing Palestine in Jewish and Arab regions. Civil war broke out and the jews mostly crushed the opposition because of their trained armed forces, forcing arabs away from their lands into surrounding countries. It is then that the state of Israel is delcared (1948), immedeately recognized by the US and the Soviet Union. And from there on the entire shit with Egypt and co starts, which is also very invloved and very boring. *yawn* I apologize if I said something that's not quite accurate here, but it's a rather long and involved mess to remember. I should find some link to a good history report, maybe later.

So, the state of Israel was built on European feelings of guilt, for a large part. I'm not saying that I don't want the israelis there (for all I care they colonize the moon), but I do believe that as the strongest they hold the key to peace more than the others. Oh, and the 6-day war is still a monument to modern warfare. You're right when you say that historic land ownership is, An Sich, trivial Satis; but I don't think it should be made to look as if Israel is merely defending itself or something. (not that you said that)


And no offense 11b, but never use the Bible as a piece of historic reference...it's completely off the facts.

And letting Palestine contiune to send over women and children with bombs strapped to their bodies to blow up restraunts is a better humane solution? Face the truth. There will never be peace until one side is destroyed. Sad but true.


So are you saying that Pontius Pilate was never the Roman procurator of Judea? Because I do believe he is in the bible and in the history books.
O and dont always believe a science book, its never completely on the facts either ( IE the world is flat)

Granted, the word 'completely' might have been a bit strong but in general historical correctness isn't the bible's strong suit. (cos it's a symbolic work rather than anything else) And we've been over the earth-is-flat thing.

I don't believe that one side necessarily HAS to be destroyed before there will be peace...even though it'll be friggin hard to get there. The biggest problem is that they both belief they have a divine right to be there (especially the jews), making it different from other ethnic civil wars like In Eastern Europe, that kinda did get solved. Blah. I need a drink.

Now that Arfat is dead and Saddam is in prison, the Arab nation has no leader. I suspect that Muslims extremist will start to flock/follow Bin Laden. Which is good because the increase in activity will lead us to him.

So the hydra has 1 more head.

I think there are probably more leaders that need to die, they're just not in the limelight.

The death of their leaders is definetely a good thing. We just need to be more proactive in annihilating these bastards before they amass enough wealth and/or experience to become really dangerous. I think new ones'll pop up all the time. We just need to have a sniper available on short notice to eliminate them heheh.

There's no such thing as an arab nation or anything close 11b...most arab countries hate each other's guts, and notably they hated Saddam's. And let's not overgeneralize things. There's no reason to go killing off leaders over there, since neither Europe nor the US is at immedeate threat by any of the countries in the Middle East. If anything it will give more reason for loonies to get it in their head that the West is pure evil.

I don't believe killing off leaders won't achieve much in the long run. In a group of 15 ppl it might, in a group of thousands I doubt it makes much of a difference cos there's always someone else to take over. What it can do is dissolve a structured dictatorship like Saddam's (as opposed to a radical splinter group of some sort), but in the end the chaos resulting from such a dissolvement will not help us either.

Dictators like Saddam have only one objective: secure their position as sole leader. They're not gonna attack the US, Europe or Israel cos they'll get wasted in no time, so it's illogical to think they've got direct terrorist plans against the west...if you're cosily bathing in wealth and power in your 3rd world-state you're not gonna risk all that for setting up terrorist attacks to have a laugh over the West getting bombed. The war in Iraq sucks...with Saddam in power the US weren't anywhere near threatened, but now a whole new load of monkeys around there have reasons (in their eyes) to blow stuff up. Sigh.


Anyway, I found a link that has (at first glance) a good, relatively unbiased (had to surf through tons of obviously pro-palestine or -israel versions first) history of the state of Israel. It's 5-6 parts and fairly long, but well put. Check it out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/israe ... /78597.stm

Things like this



put some things in a whole other prespective. Like I said, they're all to blame.

Yeh, theres still that Ar Zarqawi guy.