Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (156108)	1/12/2005 8:06:11 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

What i posted was unclear post so i deleted it. i will think on it and get back to you.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (156108)	1/12/2005 9:06:42 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There were indigenous in Palestine, punto ... i did not type your 'poor indigenous people crap', that's you mis-characterising again, i merely typed 'indigenous' ... though no doubt most if not all were indeed poor, certainly they were much poorer monetarily than the european zionists who came with hard currencies ... that they can be classified as 'people' seems not to be in question, so from this it follows that we may rest assured that they crap like the rest of us ... but it seems a little heavy-handed, doddering, superfluous, more your sort of thing, so me i'll just stick for the moment with 'indigenous', thank you This statement of yours has to be untrue - 'To the extent that the Palestinians are really indigenous, they are descended from the Jews who used to live there.' In the 1812 years from 70 AD to 1882 AD when the zionists started arriving, there had to be introduced to the area bloodlines other than those of lapsed jewry ... phoenicians [sp?], bedouins, and probably a few of every culture from Iberia to India ... people have always moved around, and when they do they tend to meet the local girls, this is just how things have always worked .... no doubt there is still a large component of the Lost Ten Tribes, and they say DNA evidence bears this out, that european jews and palestinian indigenous share much in common for genes ... which if true, makes you wonder about how jews from russian areas look kind of slav, jews from nordic areas tend to a fairer hue, and jews from Ethiopia appear distinctly darker - how does this happen, hmmm The very name Palestine, tell us where that comes from, hmm ... were the philistines jews? But suppose you could prove that palestinians derive solely from ancient jews - it wouldn't matter a whit to their indigenousicity, which is theirs forever due to generations spent continuously on that land between the Meditteranean and Arabian Seas Time is what makes you indigenous, or not ... the Rothschilds who financed the start of all this trouble in 1882 were indigenous to northern Europe far more than anywhere else - the jews had left Palestine 1.8 millennia before that date, ahem As for the we-were-there-before-them ploy, um i think the canaanites have a prior case, maybe you'd not like to be dredging up history quite so ancient 'Also, the Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, they are are indigenous to Arabia.' The term 'arab' is not racial or even necessarily cultural, it denotes the language spoken ... so what if arabic was found useful in a widening area, or its speakers wandered around and settled abroad, this is no sin ... me, i'm an healthy fraction of indigenous to the Americas, yet here i'm typing in english, there is no way in my view that this gives you the right to take my land and bulldoze my house and cut down my olive trees You don't dispute that zionists killed far more indigenous than the indigenous killed zionists, in '1949' [you mean 1948 probably] .... so fine, but this has been the pattern all the way through, pick any year of the struggle right back to the first violence circa 1921, and always far more indigenous die than zionists It would be a lot easier to respond to you if you didn't try to make so many of these useless little standard attempts at refutation in a single post .... it keeps things so shallow There were indigenous in Palestine pre-1882, punto .... the zionists do not have clean hands on the terrorism question, punto ... it seems to me that you'd do better to accept these facts, since they are widely known anyway, and move on to work out ways of reducing the resultant tension .... cheers

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (156108)	1/13/2005 8:59:20 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Respond to of 281500

"Of course you have to put it into context, it never makes sense to recite only one side of a war, as if one group of hostiles were attacking peaceful people unprovoked." Here is part of what you wrote: "...so did the Haganah. The Irgun chose differently; though for the most part they confined themselves to sabotage and blowing British military installations, not blowing up marketplaces. The Palestinians have always chosen terror first and formost, and preferred pure terror, attacking soft targets. That was how Jordan did it when they sent fedayeen into Israel; that was how Arafat liked it. It's not some automatic response to underdog status; the scale of the atrocities does not 'prove' any degree of oppression; it's a strategic choice. And an exceeding stupid one, as any neutral observer can attest, a "ruinous maximalism" as Fouad Ajami calls it." No sign of context here. Just Zionist propaganda. Perhaps you should take your own advice. My point is that your patently false statement "...so did the Haganah. The Irgun chose differently; though for the most part they confined themselves to sabotage and blowing British military installations, not blowing up marketplaces." needed to be corrected. As to your claim that the list is mostly Stern gang terrorism, I counted at least 8 references to Haganah, 5-6 to Irgun, didn't bother to count haw many refer to Zionists.