I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

[tralalala]

Right, Rio it seems you are sort of screwing up this topic - flaming for no good reason...

How can I be a racist? I have Arab friends, black friends from Ethiopia, dark and light friends, what the hell are you talking about? You have no right to call me a racist. You can just about get the hell out of this thread, even the forum because since you've arrived here, things screwed up.

Nah, I can't talk out of my arse, I tried, I ended up stinking the room out.

So, in this case, I don't think you have much of a say, because you are trying to talk to everyone as a Palestinian person who is suffering badly, which you are not.
You can't dictate what should happen here, you never will, because you simply do not have a clue, just like American Jews, so please...

[3RA1N1AC]

You answer only that which you can come up with a smartarse remark to, l don't remember you answering 3RANIAC's post.

well. i wasn't really arguing directly with his statements. what i was suggesting was that the basic presumptions of an israeli viewpoint might be so different from those of the typical FST member that he could be wasting his breath trying to convince us all that such a viewpoint is correct (or even compatible with us).

i don't mean that the "knock their parents' houses down" policy is just plain wrong. in the u.s. it would be considered ethically incorrect and unfair. in israel it might be considered ethically correct and perfectly fair. or another example: the u.s. makes major scandals of relatively trivial problems in the military backgrounds of our presidential candidates, while israelis and palestinians have no qualms about being led by people who've committed what we'd describe as atrocities. and if that's the case, then it signifies such a sharp difference in cultural attitudes that i couldn't imagine why an israeli would or should care whether or not the rest of the world agrees with something like the "knock their parents' houses down" policy.

so my point wasn't "YOU'RE WRONG!"... it was more like "you might be talking to the wrong forum, if you're hoping to win people over to your way of thinking." that's all.

[tralalala]

Well, I am not trying to convince anyone I am right, I am just making conversation, and a very interesting one may I say

[Snee]

Oh yeah, and while we are at it, let's conveniently forget that that the people who live there now aren't, at least not a majority of them, people who took, or could have taken, an active part in the actual takeover, .

What the fuck are you on about Snny? The takeover was in 1967 not 1867, think before you post.

What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.

And do you really think that most settlers participated in any military actions against Palestians (assuming their average age is 54-56 or more, which is just about what they'd have to be, to have been in the army or been able to vote), or were part of this zionist agenda of yours?

Also, it was 38 years ago, ffs. Not fucking last year.


In short, think before you post, you tosser.

[Busyman]

What the fuck are you on about Snny? The takeover was in 1967 not 1867, think before you post.

What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.

And do you really think that most settlers participated in any military actions against Palestians (assuming their average age is 54-56 or more, which is just about what they'd have to be, to have been in the army or been able to vote), or were part of this zionist agenda of yours?

Also, it was 38 years ago, ffs. Not fucking last year.


In short, think before you post, you tosser.

I never say this internet crap but....

PWNED!!!!!

[tralalala]

Just about eh..?

[Rat Faced]

Cool it please..

Lets keep it civilised.

[RPerry]

Cool it please..

Lets keep it civilised.

ok, then RioDeLeo.... out

[kazaaman]

FEAR

False
Expectations
About
Risk

[RioDeLeo]

What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.

My my, you are stupid aren't you? EVERY single person living on occupied land knows the land was stolen, and knows the UN has declared it illegal. The settlements may have started 38 years ago, but they are still going on today. EVERY settlement has armed guards to prevent the true owners from harming the settlers, so they all know what's going on. Hundreds or thousands of new homes are being built right now, walls are going up annexing more land as l type this.

@ Busyman: Grow up.