Knuckles, you want proove on the assassination of the first United Nations Mediator and his military aide? You want Proof?

Then read this:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ory/folke.html

Satisfied?

He never will be.

Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~

That's a silly comparison. Where was the genocide in spain?

There was none.

There is no genocide in Palestine, either.

Really, they're just all having tea and biscuits, aren't they? I must have mistook the jam for blood. Sorry, my mistake!!!

Originally Posted by Syed Nizam

Knuckles, you want proove on the assassination of the first United Nations Mediator and his military aide? You want Proof?

Then read this:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ory/folke.html

Satisfied?

I accept that. LEHI was one of Israel's terror groups and I have condemned them in the past.

Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~

That's a silly comparison. Where was the genocide in spain?

There is no genocide in Palestine besides we were talking about taking possesion of lands due to war.

Really. So what do you call what israel is doing to Palestine? A stroll in the park?
God, and they say us Muslims are delusional.

Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~

Really. So what do you call what israel is doing to Palestine? A stroll in the park?
God, and they say us Muslims are delusional.

Rwanda was a genocide, Dafur is a genocide, Palestine is not. If it was a genocide there would be a heck of a lot more bodies.

Yeah add up all the bodies and it's alot. Only difference is no one is making any intervention.

Do you know the history of chechnya... there was also a genocide there that hardly any one knows about!

Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~

Really, they're just all having tea and biscuits, aren't they? I must have mistook the jam for blood. Sorry, my mistake!!!

There is a difference between genocide and atrocities.

There have certainly been atrocities commited by the Israelis against the Palestinians and there have been Palestinian atrocities against the Israelis.

But genocide implies an attempt to kill off an entire group of people, racial, religious or national groups.

gen·o·cide (jĕn'ə-sīd')
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

There is no planned, systematic extermination of the Palestinians. There are no Dachau's, no Aschwitz' etc.

How long ago should something have been conquered before the conqueror can keep it? When the Ottomans conquered Constantinople 550 years ago there was hardly a Muslim in the whole city? Should it be returned?

But we can look at other territorial expansions in the 20th century. What about Eastern Poland in 1939? The Russians simply took it? Give it back to the Poles? And does that mean the Germans can have most of Western Poland back?

Should the Alsace/Lorraine area of France be returned to Germany? After all when the French got it it was mostly German-speaking? Should it be returned?

And what about Northern Ireland?

I agree that conquest is hardly a valid way to acquire land, but where do we draw the line? How long ago should something have been conquered? 10 years? 50 years? 200 years? 500 years? 1400 years? Does it matter if the 'new owners' are now in a majority? I mean, how many countries in the world have borders that have not been defined by military conquest?

Originally Posted by KAding

How long ago should something have been conquered before the conqueror can keep it? When the Ottomans conquered Constantinople 550 years ago there was hardly a Muslim in the whole city? Should it be returned?

But we can look at other territorial expansions in the 20th century. What about Eastern Poland in 1939? The Russians simply took it? Give it back to the Poles? And does that mean the Germans can have most of Western Poland back?

Should the Alsace/Lorraine area of France be returned to Germany? After all when the French got it it was mostly German-speaking? Should it be returned?

And what about Northern Ireland?

I agree that conquest is hardly a valid way to acquire land, but where do we draw the line? How long ago should something have been conquered? 10 years? 50 years? 200 years? 500 years? 1400 years? Does it matter if the 'new owners' are now in a majority? I mean, how many countries in the world have borders that have not been defined by military conquest?

Beer

Excuse me, but the arguement for israel's right for that land does not make sense. How can you bring up that 'promised land' excuse when you are a secular state? And that land is also holy to Muslims!
So yes we have a right to live there!

Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~

Yeah add up all the bodies and it's alot. Only difference is no one is making any intervention.

3000 in 10 years.
Millions have died in Congo in the same timespan and that isn't even considered a genocide.
Syria killed 30,000 during the Hama massacre in one month.
Jordan killed 3000 pals during Black September, also in one month.

Sorry, by any objective measures Palestine is not a big war. I mean, in Nepal more people died in 10 years, and people hardly accepted it classifies as a civil war.

It might be unfair, but it not a major conflict, not now at least. Even the actual wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 were fairly limited if one looks at the number of casualties, especially among Palestinians.