ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Really?
Israel Hezbollah prisoner swap.
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Really?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Except in some of the threads about the Taliban, anyway.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Still think anyone who bashes a toddlers skull in whatever the cause deserves prison .Even if he was only 16 when he did it .Actually suprise he was taken prisoner .
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
In your dreams, monkey boy.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I see when I search, the word 'hazara' is apparently mentioned in 7 threads besides this one, on this bb. 'Janjaweed' is in 36 threads. 'Palestinian' gets 500 hits.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Monkey boy? I asked a polite question, turd.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Er, so what? What's your point (if you have one, that is)?
Idaho: "Ever notice how people ignore the dynamic in Aceh.": I cannot speak for JHE or any other poster but I would imagine that JHE is suggesting that W. Sahara could be considered to be Middle Eastern in that it sits in the Arab World (geographically of course it is far from the Mid-East and yet culturally it is smack dab in the middle).
I would offer that Sudan, Chad, all through the Sahel excepting Niger, and many places geographically in the Mid-East ARE undergoing unthinkable tragedy. People on U75, and in gernal really, concentrate their efforts on the Israeli/"Palestinian" issue while completely ignoring other very pressing problems and tragedies.
I think JHE is alluding to the fact that as foreigners it is quite curious that they are so taken with this particular situation while ignoring others. I agree with JHE if that was the thought behind the comment.
Canuck: "But Western Saharans are not being oppressed by Jews.": So true. You of course hit it on the head. It is amazing how many people get riled up over the idea that MUCH (not all) of anti-Israel sentiment is traceable to anti-Jewishness and not actual concern for "Palestinians" or the campioning of their cause.
I believe though, that you misconstrued Idaho;s comment about Aceh. It was not so much that Aceh is being persecuted by Muslims, which of course is absolutely true (nice pics of a decapitated Christian school girl but I would never hear the end of ti if I posted them) but that Aceh is justr as unrelated to the Mid-East as Western Sahara. In other words, Idaho is stating that neither Sahara NOR Aceh belong in this forum.
On Sahara though I beg to differ. IT is difficult though if you exceed the geographical boundries and argue for cultural inclusion because Aceh too sits in the Muslim World so one could argue for a inclusion there as well. Still, Sahara DOES have a sizable Arab population while Aceh and Indonesia in general do not.
Also Canuck, Hazari (Hazara) are a demographic within Afghanistan and in former Soviet repulibs and not really Mid-Eastern either (roots in Mongolia, presently in Central Asia and a tiny bit in SW but where doe sone draw the line geographically?).
I would offer that Sudan, Chad, all through the Sahel excepting Niger, and many places geographically in the Mid-East ARE undergoing unthinkable tragedy. People on U75, and in gernal really, concentrate their efforts on the Israeli/"Palestinian" issue while completely ignoring other very pressing problems and tragedies.
I think JHE is alluding to the fact that as foreigners it is quite curious that they are so taken with this particular situation while ignoring others. I agree with JHE if that was the thought behind the comment.
Canuck: "But Western Saharans are not being oppressed by Jews.": So true. You of course hit it on the head. It is amazing how many people get riled up over the idea that MUCH (not all) of anti-Israel sentiment is traceable to anti-Jewishness and not actual concern for "Palestinians" or the campioning of their cause.
I believe though, that you misconstrued Idaho;s comment about Aceh. It was not so much that Aceh is being persecuted by Muslims, which of course is absolutely true (nice pics of a decapitated Christian school girl but I would never hear the end of ti if I posted them) but that Aceh is justr as unrelated to the Mid-East as Western Sahara. In other words, Idaho is stating that neither Sahara NOR Aceh belong in this forum.
On Sahara though I beg to differ. IT is difficult though if you exceed the geographical boundries and argue for cultural inclusion because Aceh too sits in the Muslim World so one could argue for a inclusion there as well. Still, Sahara DOES have a sizable Arab population while Aceh and Indonesia in general do not.
Also Canuck, Hazari (Hazara) are a demographic within Afghanistan and in former Soviet repulibs and not really Mid-Eastern either (roots in Mongolia, presently in Central Asia and a tiny bit in SW but where doe sone draw the line geographically?).
Tangent: "Circassians." OK, I will explain. Circasians are not an actual people anymore than "Palestinians" are . Before you blow up at that staement allow an explanation. Both derived their ethno-identities via symbiotic relationships/dynamics. "Palestinians" of course coopted the label "Palestinian" in 1948 when Israel allowed fro a delineation between the Jews of the Mandate and the Arabs.
Circassians developed their title from their role as Jannissaries. Janissaries as you might know were a warrior class in in Ottoman society. the term si sometimes applied to all peoples of the Caucus, by Circassians themselves in hopes of offering a stronger historical narrative but is not true in any way.
The Ottomans ensalved via conquest and via outright purchase various Slavic and Central Asian demographics from the Caucus and Bessarabia (the place where my mom was born and her family lived for centuries). The core of this hybridised group are the Adyghe People, from the nothern Caucus mountains. Several other ethnicities were also combined and soon managed to find enough commonality to grow into an identifiable group.
ALL Circassians, as I said earlier, are Muslim (Sunna as I also said). This was not a choice but was forced on most , who were originally Christian (various sects). The Ottomans did not offer them a choice. NONE WERE JEWS. Circassians say this, on your source site, because it allows them to then claim all Peoples of the Caucus are Circassian and this is important to them because like many ethnicities they hope to obtain some level of self determination.
Caucus Jews, now almost extinct as a cutlure, were a distinct Jewish group who did not even speak the same language as non-Jews in the region. Their language was related to Farsi, related to Bukhari Jewish (AKA Bokhara, as in Samarkand,etc.).
Your site also had a rationale for making that ridiculous claim about 150,000 people living in pre-67 Golan. When the French held Syria as the bulk of its French Mandate, Circassians in Kunteira lobbied for an independant homeland. At the time though less than 7,000 lived in all of Golan and so the French ignored them. Unlike the Maronites of the Shouf, they were neither Christian nor numerous enough to constitute a possible ally for French regional ambitions.
I happened to befriend many Circassians in the army, they and the Druse make up the Charuv Battalion . I also used to idolise the Cricassian football star who captained our Olympic team, Beebras Natcho. Great player.
"There are no anti-Israel propagndists here.": Sorry Tangent but that gave me a great laugh. I am sure you believe what you say but nothing could be further from the truth. Scratch that, so much posted in this forum IS far from the truth. Still, that comment was worth a few chuckles.
"Most link to Israeli media and NGOS.": Sorry but Ha'aretz is a leftist newspaper and the only NGOS EVER sourced here are B'tzelem, Shalom Achshav, Adalah, and other Peacenik or Refusenik nonsense.
When has anyone sourced Ma'ariv? Even the J. Post which is as Centrist as it gets in Israel? Just because it is based in Israel is supposed to mean it is objective? That assumption makes absolutely no sense. Israel is a liberal democracy and as such allows such horrendous garbage as Adalah, and the con artists of B'tzelem and Machshon. "ANONYMOUS" sources are quoted, nothing is corroborated, and as such it is entirely worthless. Just because is segues with a poster's ideology does not make it worthwhile.
As I always say, would people accept my quoting the MFA? The IDF? Of course not!
"People are posting because they care about the future of 'Palestinians' and Israelis...": No offence but you can only speak for yourself. You cannot know what soemone else posts for. I can also tell you that I know 2 posters , curtrrently on the board, who admit they wish to see Israel gone and buried and that is not neccessarily a bad thing (that they think that, not the thought per se). People are entiled to their beliefs. As long as they admit it, why would you deny it?
"People labeled as 'anti-Israel propagandists' are instead for 'non-violence,' etc.": Except that you are wrong. Saying an "Israeli cun^ deseved to be killed" is not promoting "non-violence." Saying that Arabs are like slaves that learn how to hate from their masters thus it is compeltely understandable just why they bomb is also not promoting non-violence.
"Rachamim links to Arutz Sheva which is anti-female, anti-govt., anti-Arab,etc.": Actually, wrong on all those accusations about A. Sheva. It is none of them. It has female staff and writes on fmeale centrist issues, it fully supports the State of Israel while not always agreeing with everything every govt. does, and also has Arabs on staff as well as reporting on Arab issues.
Since you are a person who finds it ok to quote from B'tzelem and link to Machshon I find it strangely curious that you would question any source I provide.
As for "Ex-Kahanist," you are certainly correct about that as well as about my being "Centrist." I also am committed to truth and accuracy and as such question that which I find to be patently untrue. Nothing conflicted about that.
You know, I honestly have no question whatsoever that you are firmly committed to finding a non-vioelnt solution to that which ails but feel you make a gross mistake in assuming all others here share your views. Sadly, they do not. As for Canuck and JHE trying to shut down discussions, and I am not saying this simply because I am not on their shi^ lists, I find the opposite to be true. I see both as extremely valuable members because they question a very negative status quo on this site.
It is quite alright for people to call me a "baby killing this or that" but not ok for another poster to question it. It is quite ok for me to be called "cun^" and "twat" but not ok for another psoter to note that those are devices meant to steer discourse away from issues.
Should either one leave the forum,etc. it weill be much more homogenised with the general tone being one of unadulterated anti-Israel and anti-Zionism. Ironically, I have yet to see that either one even cares about Zionism. What I do see though is that neither one can easily stomach the hypocrisy that passes for discourse in this forum.
Circassians developed their title from their role as Jannissaries. Janissaries as you might know were a warrior class in in Ottoman society. the term si sometimes applied to all peoples of the Caucus, by Circassians themselves in hopes of offering a stronger historical narrative but is not true in any way.
The Ottomans ensalved via conquest and via outright purchase various Slavic and Central Asian demographics from the Caucus and Bessarabia (the place where my mom was born and her family lived for centuries). The core of this hybridised group are the Adyghe People, from the nothern Caucus mountains. Several other ethnicities were also combined and soon managed to find enough commonality to grow into an identifiable group.
ALL Circassians, as I said earlier, are Muslim (Sunna as I also said). This was not a choice but was forced on most , who were originally Christian (various sects). The Ottomans did not offer them a choice. NONE WERE JEWS. Circassians say this, on your source site, because it allows them to then claim all Peoples of the Caucus are Circassian and this is important to them because like many ethnicities they hope to obtain some level of self determination.
Caucus Jews, now almost extinct as a cutlure, were a distinct Jewish group who did not even speak the same language as non-Jews in the region. Their language was related to Farsi, related to Bukhari Jewish (AKA Bokhara, as in Samarkand,etc.).
Your site also had a rationale for making that ridiculous claim about 150,000 people living in pre-67 Golan. When the French held Syria as the bulk of its French Mandate, Circassians in Kunteira lobbied for an independant homeland. At the time though less than 7,000 lived in all of Golan and so the French ignored them. Unlike the Maronites of the Shouf, they were neither Christian nor numerous enough to constitute a possible ally for French regional ambitions.
I happened to befriend many Circassians in the army, they and the Druse make up the Charuv Battalion . I also used to idolise the Cricassian football star who captained our Olympic team, Beebras Natcho. Great player.
"There are no anti-Israel propagndists here.": Sorry Tangent but that gave me a great laugh. I am sure you believe what you say but nothing could be further from the truth. Scratch that, so much posted in this forum IS far from the truth. Still, that comment was worth a few chuckles.
"Most link to Israeli media and NGOS.": Sorry but Ha'aretz is a leftist newspaper and the only NGOS EVER sourced here are B'tzelem, Shalom Achshav, Adalah, and other Peacenik or Refusenik nonsense.
When has anyone sourced Ma'ariv? Even the J. Post which is as Centrist as it gets in Israel? Just because it is based in Israel is supposed to mean it is objective? That assumption makes absolutely no sense. Israel is a liberal democracy and as such allows such horrendous garbage as Adalah, and the con artists of B'tzelem and Machshon. "ANONYMOUS" sources are quoted, nothing is corroborated, and as such it is entirely worthless. Just because is segues with a poster's ideology does not make it worthwhile.
As I always say, would people accept my quoting the MFA? The IDF? Of course not!
"People are posting because they care about the future of 'Palestinians' and Israelis...": No offence but you can only speak for yourself. You cannot know what soemone else posts for. I can also tell you that I know 2 posters , curtrrently on the board, who admit they wish to see Israel gone and buried and that is not neccessarily a bad thing (that they think that, not the thought per se). People are entiled to their beliefs. As long as they admit it, why would you deny it?
"People labeled as 'anti-Israel propagandists' are instead for 'non-violence,' etc.": Except that you are wrong. Saying an "Israeli cun^ deseved to be killed" is not promoting "non-violence." Saying that Arabs are like slaves that learn how to hate from their masters thus it is compeltely understandable just why they bomb is also not promoting non-violence.
"Rachamim links to Arutz Sheva which is anti-female, anti-govt., anti-Arab,etc.": Actually, wrong on all those accusations about A. Sheva. It is none of them. It has female staff and writes on fmeale centrist issues, it fully supports the State of Israel while not always agreeing with everything every govt. does, and also has Arabs on staff as well as reporting on Arab issues.
Since you are a person who finds it ok to quote from B'tzelem and link to Machshon I find it strangely curious that you would question any source I provide.
As for "Ex-Kahanist," you are certainly correct about that as well as about my being "Centrist." I also am committed to truth and accuracy and as such question that which I find to be patently untrue. Nothing conflicted about that.
You know, I honestly have no question whatsoever that you are firmly committed to finding a non-vioelnt solution to that which ails but feel you make a gross mistake in assuming all others here share your views. Sadly, they do not. As for Canuck and JHE trying to shut down discussions, and I am not saying this simply because I am not on their shi^ lists, I find the opposite to be true. I see both as extremely valuable members because they question a very negative status quo on this site.
It is quite alright for people to call me a "baby killing this or that" but not ok for another poster to question it. It is quite ok for me to be called "cun^" and "twat" but not ok for another psoter to note that those are devices meant to steer discourse away from issues.
Should either one leave the forum,etc. it weill be much more homogenised with the general tone being one of unadulterated anti-Israel and anti-Zionism. Ironically, I have yet to see that either one even cares about Zionism. What I do see though is that neither one can easily stomach the hypocrisy that passes for discourse in this forum.
Similar threads
- Poll
