Latest Exploit of the Heroic Palestinians.

[Ned]

I heard on the radio today and interview Charle Garrault(sp?) had with two Muslim girls who grew up in the United States. They both believed that strapping on a bomb and killing Israeli's was "good" that the girls who did this to Israeli's would enter Paradise.

These are Americans for gods sake!

How in the world is this violence ever going to stop with the "oppressed" Muslims in the United States being taught to hate.

Ned

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So, are the Germans contesting this? Is there a conflict between the two countries? Are Russians actively building settlements while the Germans protesting against these? Are the Russians treating the Germans like second class citizens?

As far as I know, the majority of the German population was forcibly removed when the Russians took over. What you would call "ethnic cleansing". The small German minority that remains doesn't get mentioned much, IIRC. I think that there have been discussions between the Germans and the Russians about it, but I can't remember for sure off hand. I just wanted to remind people that many other groups have been screwed throughout history but didn't resort to killing little girls in their homes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Dino, the girl didn't deserve to die, but it is not the fault of the palestinians.

What's the difference if her death was justified or deserved? The arguements are still the same and thier truth value isn't helped either way.

BTW, the very same Geneva Convention you are bringing up against the Israelis bans the form of attack the Palestinians are using against them. The laws of war also make no exceptions for either the agressor or defender.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


As far as I know, the majority of the German population was forcibly removed when the Russians took over. What you would call "ethnic cleansing". The small German minority that remains doesn't get mentioned much, IIRC. I think that there have been discussions between the Germans and the Russians about it, but I can't remember for sure off hand. I just wanted to remind people that many other groups have been screwed throughout history but didn't resort to killing little girls in their homes.

Sorry Drake, but facts like these don't fit people's agendas.

[Ned]

Originally posted by nationalist


What's the legal basis for aggressive war? The Israelis payed for that land with blood, and deserve to keep it. There are numerous precedents for their occupation, but the one that sticks in my mind right now is the land that the U.S.S.R. grabbed after WW2. The Soviets were attacked, successfully fought off the Nazis, and pushed back with an offensive of their own. They kept the land conquered during that offensive (either directly or through satellite states).

Another example is Peuto Rico.

Ned

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe the Germans in that area should start killing Russian settlers?

And if they did, the US would be 100% behind them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Another example is Peuto Rico.

Um.. no. We actually received Puerto Rico and the Phillipines in a treaty with Spain concluded at the end of the Spanish-American War.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The legal basis for it is the geneva conventions. I think it is the fifth amendment, but I'm not entirely sure.

Brief history:

WW1: great horror and suffering

post-WW1: the leaders of the major powers in the world sat down to ensure that a second WW could not happen. the basic premise: aggression is not a valid way to expand. Two factions emerged. The faction advocating policying the world with treaties won out.

WW2: Germany shows how much those treaties were worth. Great suffering and horror.

post-WW2: the leaders of most of the world sit down again, this time affirming that aggression should be met with active resistance.

Great example. Current international law banning aggression is as applicable to the real world as the Kellogg-Briand pact.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


IIRC, neither Germany and Japan were occupied for any extended period of time.

East Germany was officially occupied until the Red Army pulled out in 1990. The Allies didn't allow an armed force in the West until 1956. The British, Americans and French were still active in internal German developments in the 1960s.

Japan regained sovereignty in 1951, by the Peace of San Francisco.

You may note that the right of conquest lasts so long as the occupier deems fit. In the case of West Germany and Japan, the Allies stayed for as long as they felt necessary to ensure their interests in those countries.

The Israelis are behaving in the same manner. When Egypt agreed to peace, they received territory back. When peace was made with Jordan, some consessions were granted. If the Palestinians would stop blowing up people and places in Israel, then maybe the Israelis would agree to some more permanent settlement with them.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Great example. Current international law banning aggression is as applicable to the real world as the Kellogg-Briand pact.

What do you mean as applicable as the K-B pact? It outlawed war you know. And thanks to that wonderful treaty there hasn't been a war since 1927!

[Ned]

Also remember, that the Israeli's took the land from the Jordanians and the Egyptians, who in turn took the land from the "Palestinians" provisional government in 1948 as the British withdrew. That land has never, ever, in the whole history of time been "Palestinian." Ned

[nationalist]

Originally posted by notyoueither

The Israelis are behaving in the same manner. When Egypt agreed to peace, they received territory back. When peace was made with Jordan, some consessions were granted. If the Palestinians would stop blowing up people and places in Israel, then maybe the Israelis would agree to some more permanent settlement with them.

Araft and the rest of his peace loving cronies don't want a settlement, they want a pile of dead Israelis. Look at the peace offered by Barak before this intifada started. He was going to give the Palestinains nearly everything they wanted. Arafat turned it down...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also remember, that the Israeli's took the land from the Jordanians and the Egyptians, who in turn took the land from the "Palestinians" provisional government in 1948 as the British withdrew. That land has never, ever, in the whole history of time been "Palestinian."

So no people lived there before the Zionist invasion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at the peace offered by Barak before this intifada started. He was going to give the Palestinains nearly everything they wanted.

BS! And one of the biggest myths ever put forward... it has been struck down time and time again on this forum. Dividing Palestine into enclaves isn't really 'everything they wanted'

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So no people lived there before the Zionist invasion?

People did live there. It was populated by Jews and Syrian Arabs...