|
Post by yigal on Dec 2, 2005 18:37:19 GMT -5
well its not dishonest to calim Egyptians and SOuth "palestinians" the same, more so with 3azans even the dialect of 3aza is little more than Egyptian masked as levantine, its the equivalent of an american talking about Loos,trollys,lifts,pedwalks etc
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 2, 2005 19:00:01 GMT -5
Good try: But Israel claimed that EGYPTIANS started the war. Egyptians are not Palestinians. Yet you hoped to deceive by conflating the two groups under the blanket term "Arab". The Arabs attacked. Bwa-ha-ha-ha Good try. That's like England being attacked by Denmark and retaliting against Sweden, with a propagandist trying to make it sound okay by saying "Er . . . uh . . . the Scandinavians' attacked." Try again--and this time taylor your rhetoric to an educated audience. It might work better. Was that supposed to be a clever comeback? This time you have really been lured into your own trap: a certain leader of the Palestinians (I'll leave you to guess), was not only of Egyptian heritage, but also born in El Cairo. HAHAHAHAHA (sorry, I just really felt like bursting out in a derogatory way like you do in two-thirds of yours posts) It's not HAHAHAHAHA. It's Bwa-ha-hah-ah-aha. The initial "bwa" is essential.
|
|
|
Post by ikilledjesus on Dec 2, 2005 19:00:58 GMT -5
Bwahahahahaha
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 2, 2005 19:38:23 GMT -5
Curious6, Gosh, I hope you're not trying to imply that Yasser Arafat had anything to do with the 1948 war with Israel??? What was he, then--13 years-old?
--Unless you don't know: After the Zionists drove out thousands of Palestinians, they had to relocate around the region. Yasser Arafat's family was from Palestine and he was born in Egypt--of two Palestinian parents. So he's not one iota "Egyptian," from any ethnic point of view. Likewise internationally renowned actor Omar Sharif was born in Egypt, of Lebanese parents. So if you did a dna test on either man, they wouldn't show up as Egyptian--since, as you know, Egyptians aren't ethnically Arabs. (Actually, neither are Lebanese or Palestinians.) But the point is: Yasser Arafat was only born in Egypt because of exile. Like in the Bible, where it is written that Jesus' parents fled from Herod and went to Egypt with the baby Jesus. Does that make Jesus an "Egyptian" too? I hardly think so.
* As Lord Wellington said, with regard to being born in Ireland of British parents, "Don't call me Irish. I have no Irish blood. My father was merely stationed there. I don't care that I was born in Ireland. Being born in a barn does not make one a horse!"
P.S.--You wrote: "...the misinterpretation, convenient manipulation, distortion, outright ignorance, and downplaying of history's facts and figures staining the vast majority of your posts places you in a whole new category of 'extreme historical revisionism'." I'm shocked that hotblooded Yigal is more tolerant and patient than you are. He amicably offered facts and tried to insert some relevant anecdotes. This is a striking contrast to what you did, jumping in with fists swinging. As to the history of Israel--you're right. I said at the outset that "it was my understanding," etc. I didn't set up as an expert. And who is? The history of the region is muddled with all sorts of propaganda on BOTH sides. "Facts" that both parties present should be viewed skeptically. Forgive me for only having a partial, passing understanding of the region. I'm handicapped by cynicism. I can't believe a word written by anyone named Goldstein, Schwartz or Cohen . . . anymore than Hassan, Habib or Al-Khalil. They're all such friggin' phonies, with agendas to push. One thing I do believe--and I hope you didn't selectively ignore it--is that Israel should exist and be open to the world's Jews. So if I'm a bigot, I guess I'm a rather retarded one.
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Dec 2, 2005 20:04:36 GMT -5
Curious6, Gosh, I hope you're not trying to imply that Yasser Arafat had anything to do with the 1948 war with Israel??? What was he, then--13 years-old? --Unless you don't know: After the Zionists drove out thousands of Palestinians, they had to relocate around the region. Yasser Arafat's family was from Palestine and he was born in Egypt--of two Palestinian parents. So he's not one iota "Egyptian," from any ethnic point of view. Likewise internationally renowned actor Omar Sharif was born in Egypt, of Lebanese parents. So if you did a dna test on either man, they wouldn't show up as Egyptian--since, as you know, Egyptians aren't ethnically Arabs. (Actually, neither are Lebanese or Palestinians.) But the point is: Yasser Arafat was only born in Egypt because of exile. Like in the Bible, where it is written that Jesus' parents fled from Herod and went to Egypt with the baby Jesus. Does that make Jesus an "Egyptian" too? I hardly think so. * As Lord Wellington said, with regard to being born in Ireland of British parents, "Don't call me Irish. I have no Irish blood. My father was merely stationed there. I don't care that I was born in Ireland. Being born in a barn does not make one a horse!"P.S.--You wrote: "...the misinterpretation, convenient manipulation, distortion, outright ignorance, and downplaying of history's facts and figures staining the vast majority of your posts places you in a whole new category of 'extreme historical revisionism'." I'm shocked that hotblooded Yigal is more tolerant and patient than you are. You're usually the calm one. As to the history of Israel--it's muddled with all sorts of propaganda on BOTH sides. "Facts" that both parties present should be viewed skeptically. Forgive me for only having a partial, passing understanding of the region. I'm handicapped by cynicism. I can't believe a word written by anyone named Goldstein, Schwartz or Cohen . . . anymore than Hassan, Habib or Al-Khalil. They're all such friggin' phonies. One thing I do believe--and I hope you didn't selectively ignore it--is that I believe that Israel should exist and be open to the world's Jews. So if I'm a bigot, I guess I'm a rather retarded one. yasser arafat was not full palestinian, he had a Egyptian parent and a Syro-Palestinian parent, making him 1/4 at best , but what do u know about the region ure a mexican(spaniard,mexican a beaner is a beaner)
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Dec 2, 2005 20:05:26 GMT -5
Gosh, I hope you're not trying to imply that Yasser Arafat had anything to do with the 1948 war with Israel??? What was he, then--13 years-old? Nobody said that. And Egypt wasn't the only nation that attacked. Six Arab countries, including Jordan and Iraq, helped out too. Not to mention, a crapload of angry Palestinians inside the state. While many were driven out during the war, most left before. The Zionists even encouraged people to stay. That's why there are more than a million Arab citizens of Israel today. Actually, his mother was from Palestine. His father was Egyptian, if I recall correctly. I could be wrong. You can say Lebanese Arabs aren't ethnically Arab - even though they are - and get away with it, but Palestinians are the most Arabian group in the Levant next to Bedouins. I defy you to prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 2, 2005 20:14:43 GMT -5
Yankel, Yeah, Yigal pointed out that Arafat actually had Egyptian blood. So I stand corrected. But it still is irrelevant since Arafat had nothing to do with the 1948 war. That was the war that dissolved Palestine. And if you re-read my posts, you'll see that I included a jab at Jordan for taking a chunk out of Palestine and trying to destroy it, too. So it wasn't all evil Jews. The Palestinians were screwed over by the so-called Arab nations, too. I wrote that--yet people are selectively ignoring things I write. It's flustering. They want me to be cartoony evil, and I'm not. Where I falter is where I'm factually incorrect [as you and Yigal pointed out, correcting me]. I manfully accept all corrections. But it hurts when the sentiments behind what I write are distorted--like Curious6 calling me a bigot and a "revisionist". He knows how loaded that term is. Yet he used it to imply I'm some Jew-hater out to kill all Jews. There's 0% revisionism in anything I wrote. I don't even know enough to revise. Where I part ways with people is simply where I'm factually wrong. I invite correction, not irrational attacks. Man!
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Dec 2, 2005 20:21:11 GMT -5
Jordan (not that I have a problem with its existence) is a big chunk of Palestine. It's demographically Palestinian, also.
There's too much context missing from your posts, hence Curious6's comments. It's like you're being contrarian just to be contrarian.
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 2, 2005 20:27:34 GMT -5
Drooper do you think this is factually correct?
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Dec 2, 2005 20:27:55 GMT -5
In the first use, you distinguish them from Arabs (correct because the Christians are descended from Jews for Jesus - original stylie) That's true. The Christians are probably more aboriginal.
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Dec 2, 2005 20:38:28 GMT -5
Droop things are not black and white, and both People with left and right have an agenda here are facts only al qaeda disagree with
#1 Most of Present Day israel was bought not stolen,from effendis, effendis made up 10% of arabs and in actuallity only owned 6% of the land but sold us even land that they didnt own because it was reposesed by the british, however the jews,like the arabs considered the british "occupiers" so they hapilly bought land from effendis even if it was british controlled,when british occupation ended, the land became jewish and the 90% of palestinians who lived on effendi land where fighting and attacking us,we offered them citezenship they offered us death, we shoed them off
Where the left and right Disagree is is this
The left feels that the palestinians where betrayed by effendis and that effendis didnt have legitamacy, and that the Israelis are an extension of Western Imperialistic ideals
The right feels Palestinians already ocupy most of palestine and should be shoed of of both sides of the jordan river
the truth is yeah, Effendis where greedy and screwed over their own people(most of them became land owners in east palestine,now jordan)
yeah Jews took the "occupied" terretories by force, but during a war,and yes sometimes jews are antagonistic
i want friendship with jordan, and am willing to part with westbank and gaza but not golan or jerusalem take it or leave it
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Dec 2, 2005 20:46:49 GMT -5
fact #2 is that Arabs where the majority in the land now called israel (right has problem with the fact it really wasnt land without a people for a peaole without a land) however Tzfat and Jerusalem had a jewish Majority untill the great Syrian/Egyptian migration in late 1900s(left has a problem with this all one has to do is look at ottomon records) and tho arabs where the majority most of the land was not very populated because Arabs lived in heavily populated villages scattered across the land (left has a problem with this,Right has a problem with this because it still states they are the majority), the land was composed of two climates, swamp land and dessert(the negev) this is the reason it wasnt so populated , the jews dried the swamps and irrigated the land, jordan later borrowed our methods
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 2, 2005 21:56:21 GMT -5
Droop things are not black and white, and both People with left and right have an agenda here are facts only al qaeda disagree with #1 Most of Present Day israel was bought not stolen,from effendis, effendis made up 10% of arabs and in actuallity only owned 6% of the land but sold us even land that they didnt own because it was reposesed by the british, however the jews,like the arabs considered the british "occupiers" so they hapilly bought land from effendis even if it was british controlled,when british occupation ended, the land became jewish and the 90% of palestinians who lived on effendi land where fighting and attacking us,we offered them citezenship they offered us death, we shoed them off Where the left and right Disagree is is this The left feels that the palestinians where betrayed by effendis and that effendis didnt have legitamacy, and that the Israelis are an extension of Western Imperialistic ideals The right feels Palestinians already ocupy most of palestine and should be shoed of of both sides of the jordan river the truth is yeah, Effendis where greedy and screwed over their own people(most of them became land owners in east palestine,now jordan) yeah Jews took the "occupied" terretories by force, but during a war,and yes sometimes jews are antagonistic i want friendship with jordan, and am willing to part with westbank and gaza but not golan or jerusalem take it or leave it If Europeans all of a sudden were dead set on starting a new crusade for the holy land, would you support their right to do so?
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Dec 2, 2005 23:00:32 GMT -5
Droop things are not black and white, and both People with left and right have an agenda here are facts only al qaeda disagree with #1 Most of Present Day israel was bought not stolen,from effendis, effendis made up 10% of arabs and in actuallity only owned 6% of the land but sold us even land that they didnt own because it was reposesed by the british, however the jews,like the arabs considered the british "occupiers" so they hapilly bought land from effendis even if it was british controlled,when british occupation ended, the land became jewish and the 90% of palestinians who lived on effendi land where fighting and attacking us,we offered them citezenship they offered us death, we shoed them off Where the left and right Disagree is is this The left feels that the palestinians where betrayed by effendis and that effendis didnt have legitamacy, and that the Israelis are an extension of Western Imperialistic ideals The right feels Palestinians already ocupy most of palestine and should be shoed of of both sides of the jordan river the truth is yeah, Effendis where greedy and screwed over their own people(most of them became land owners in east palestine,now jordan) yeah Jews took the "occupied" terretories by force, but during a war,and yes sometimes jews are antagonistic i want friendship with jordan, and am willing to part with westbank and gaza but not golan or jerusalem take it or leave it If Europeans all of a sudden were dead set on starting a new crusade for the holy land, would you support their right to do so? would i support it as in would i be for it,no but are they entitled to try and get slaughtered sure
|
|
|
Post by Curious6 on Dec 3, 2005 5:21:40 GMT -5
Drooperdoo, the only reason I came with 'fists swinging' is because you are very one-sided and provocative. You post hypotheses as facts, give historical veracity to events which most mainstream historians would have no problem in dismissing (i.e. Palestinians are not descendants of the Philistines; the Philistines were Greek sea-people), and then ironically proceed to say the history of a country is based on 'lies', without even bothering to carefully research the issue. That's what got me heated up.
|
|