Did not mean to insult you.
Did i insult anyone else besides OTH?

Your argument seemed pointless to me-hope i don't insult you by answering this way.

Now i understand....

Er... no. As a matter of fact, I don't see how you can make that comparison.

1940: an extermination program is started in some country under a Nazi dictatorship. Six million Pakistanis are killed in various gruesome ways. This understandably tugs at heartstrings, so the UN decides to give Oslo to the Pakistanis and Vietnamese, this in part because it is the place in the world they identify with the most, because it was their land 2000 years ago, and because their old Holy City was located in downtown Oslo. In fact, the Tiger City is where the greatest mosque of all times was built, before the Norwegians razed it and built the royal palace in its place.

Also considered in the decision was the fact that in 1945, Oslo already contained lots of Pakistanis, who fought valiantly against both the Norwegians and the British regime ruling Norway. The decision to give the Pakistanis, a people without a homeland to call their own, Oslo and the surrounding counties as their nation was a matter of practicality both in terms of military and demographics, a means of settling years and years of violence and giving the Pakistanis their nation in the lands where there already lived a lot of them. Where else, thought, the UN, should Pakistan have its home than in the city given to them by God, as described in the Qur'an (things were looking pretty ugly for little Aisha for a second, before that angel descended and said the order to Muhammed to kill her as a burnt offering was just a test of faith:o)?

Unfortunately, the Nordic peoples did not agree with the decision, and once founded, Oslostan was instantly invaded by Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, the Faeroes and the Samis, but in part thanks to American aid, Oslostan has so far beaten back every attack:up:.

Behold the flag of Oslostan, complete with the Prophet Muhammed.


Yeah, fits perfectly. Except, um, every single detail:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:.

HAMAS doesn't "defend itself". We're not talking French World War II saboteurs here, we're talking about a regime, and thus nation, with a sworn mission to destroy the entirety of Israel. It's akin to the Soviet Union taking over half of Europe under the guise of "fighting facism".

You don't "defend yourself" against a nation by firing thousands of missiles a year into its cities, or by teaching children to hate its inhabitans, or by sending people into their markets to blow themselves up. Would you have supported Allied resistance fighters doing the same thing during WWII? Would you support Tibetans firing RPG-7s into Chinese cities?

Please think before you post.

Maybe the United Nations can just take a mulligan on the whole thing. Kick everyone out and give the land to someone else... like the gays and lesbians for instance. :D

We can keep all the hot lesbians here for the porn industry, but we can ship all the gays and the ugly lesbians to their new promised land. :up: Legalized marriage? No problem, it is your country. :D

Jus tryin to think out of the box here. :har::haha:

(this thread was getting a bit too tightly wound up) :|\\

The gays can have Iran. Just make sure all the parks are within view of Imadinnerjacket's palace, so he can enjoy the sight of lesbians walking hand in hand from his bedroom.

I say nuke 'em both:D
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture...cker/nukes.jpg


Now seriously, you say it's impossible to have a combined Palestine-Israeli state. That may be, in that case I'd say give a huge portion of Israel back to the Palestines.
Some searching on wikipedia suggests there are about 6.000.000 Jews living in Israel (+Gaza+West Bank), and about 5.000.000 Palestinians. I'd say the Palestinians should thus be given at least 45% of the Israelian territory.

Why not just give them 45% of the Netherlands or Finland, if you are so generous.


:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

MH, chill bro, no one here is interested in a real debate. Its the sabbath (well it is here), kick back and have a cold one.

:cool:

I would prefer 45% of Netherlands given to Jews
Some part of Finland would be nice to chill out.:up:
They got good evil metal bands there.

well, because you say that because the Jews came to Palestine and claimed it as their own, it's okay for more Jews to come there since it's their country anyway.

Except for the Pakistanis were not given Oslo, but the whole of Norway, and except for originally there actually weren't so many Pakistanis living in Oslo. In 1850 only 4%.

Civilians are part of the conquering force as well. Conquerors are not just the soldiers that kill the defenders, but the civilians that occupy the country in name of the conqueror as well.

It's not a nice way of defending ones country, killing the invading civilians, but it's defending ones country nonetheless.

I wouldn't support the killings, but I would support the Allied/Tibetan resistance nonetheless.
I don't support the way in which Hamas defends Palestine (by killing civilians), but I certainly support Hamas itself.

Or rather you should read before you post. Where did I say that I agree with the *way* in which Hamas is defending Palestine?

Oh, they can have all of Finland:D

The thing is, the Netherlands or Finland never invaded Palestine. I hope it wasn't a serious question as to which country should cede their lands.

The Finns are used to giving territory to other nations, so they probably won't even notice it if we take some more:D.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r..._Partition.jpg

:looks around nervously for angry ferrets:

That's basically the gist of it, yes. When people receive a nation, and this nation is recognized, you have a right to migrate there.

We agree, then -- the situations are vastly different, and shouldn't be compared:up:.

Except no one is getting conquered, but rather was given sovereignity over part of the land they inhabited. If the UN gave Kurdistan to the Kurds, or Tibet to the Tibetans, would you consider that conquest as well?

Wow. Just... wow. You just lost all respect in my eyes.

DarkFish, working hard, through terrorism and deliberate killing of innocents, to wipe another country off the map is not "defending your country", it's aggression and conquest. Attacking neighbouring nations' citizens because you claim they present a cultural threat to you (which Israel in no way does to Palestine) wasn't a valid way to do politics when the Germans did it in 1940, nor is it valid today.

Typically, supporting someone means supporting them. "Oh, but I do support vegetarianism, I just don't agree with the whole not-eating-meat deal":damn:.

The thing is, Israel never invaded Palestine either. An invasion involves armed personnel crossing a border to take a country by force. The British abandoning a colony, leaving each of the colony's two ethnic groups in charge of a fraction each, is not an invasion by any meaning of the word. Perhaps if "exvasion" is a word, it'd fit, but according to my spell checker that doesn't seem to be the case.

I suppose the Brits should have pulled out without splitting Palestine in two. Because, you know, that usually works out so well for everyone, look at how well the Hutus treated the Tutsis in Rwanda...

If you need it spelled out to you: no, it wasn't.

Oh really? :hmmm:

Dowly is one of only a few sensible Finns here IMO....it's the ITG.....the youngster who is looking/or possibly fearing conscription in the near future or IMO the individual who can't agree with anyone and is little more than a conscientious objector to what his country support (all 100+ of them) have signed up to who you should ignore.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/965...indcurtain.jpg

then how the hell do you not see how I can make that comparison? Both phrases are LITERALLY the same, only the words "Muslim" and "Europe" have been changed into "Jews" and "Palestine". But somehow the first one is not okay, while the second one is perfectly all right:doh:

In a slightly edited form, the situations would be amazingly similar and thus would make for a good comparison.

Except for that the vast majority of the Israelians didn't inhabit Palestine in the first place. So instead of comparing it with "giving Kurdistan to the Kurds", you'd better compare it with "giving Norway to the Pakistanis". I would consider that conquest.

You make one big mistake here. You see it as a conflict between two different nations. While in fact it's only one (former) nation. It's the occupied working hard to wipe the occupiers off the map. And that is exactly what "defending ones country" is: attempting to drive out the invaders.

I cannot deny Hamas uses terrorism, and deliberately kills innocents. And I do definitely not support that. But IMO they do have the right to defend themselves against the Israelis (by conquering back the territory that was taken from them).

That comparison doesn't go. Not eating meat is essential for being vegetarian, so you cannot support one and not support the other.

You might compare it to e.g. anti-animal testing action groups. While some do it peacefully, others (Hamas) take a more aggressive stance and try to destroy the laboratories and free the test subjects.
In this comparison, if I were against animal testing I would support the goals of both groups (since they are the same). But I would not support the way in which the second group tries to achieve those goals.

Similarly, I do support the goals of Hamas, while I do not support Hamas' actions.

Dowly? Sensible? When did that happen? :O:

jk ferret, I loves ya really :03:

I took it as a dismissal, as in I thought I had a point and you told me to go play with myself. I don't really get insulted so much as I like to reply in kind. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again; I just like to talk about it honestly.

No hard feelings. We said our piece, and we can make our peace, but let's get back to the fight! :D