the trailboss abuses his CodeRanch power for his other stuff (power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely is kinda neat!)
permaculture light bulbs permaculture electric heat permaculture cast iron permaculture wood burning stove permaculture solar food dehydrators
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes The war on terrorism Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "The war on terrorism" Watch "The war on terrorism" New topic
Author

The war on terrorism

Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Russian commuter train blast kills 40
ROSTOV-ON-DON, Russia, Dec. 5 � A powerful bomb tore through a commuter train near Chechnya during morning rush hour Friday, killing 40 people and wounding scores of others in what authorities described as an act of terrorism.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001562.asp?0cv=CB10


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1390
Why are the newsmedia calling them "terrorists" instead of "militants"? Aren't they afraid of compromising their objectivity?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Why are the newsmedia calling them "terrorists" instead of "militants"? Aren't they afraid of compromising their objectivity?

Because they're terrorists. Calling them militants would be PC-speak to avoid calling them what they really are.
Vinod John
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 162
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Why are the newsmedia calling them "terrorists" instead of "militants"? Aren't they afraid of compromising their objectivity?

Actually they are terrorists because they targeted innocent civilian on a public area. Don't you call people who's what to achieve their goal by terrorize other as Terroist ?.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Why are the newsmedia calling them "terrorists" instead of "militants"? Aren't they afraid of compromising their objectivity?

Militants dont blast public transport.


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1390
Palestinian militants do.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
That would make them terrorists.
Joe
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by R K Singh:

Militants dont blast public transport.

Connex do.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Joe King:

Connex do.

Blast it? I don't know about that. Mislay a train loaded with pasengers overnight? Yes.
[ December 08, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

SCJP1.4, SCWCD
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Palestinian militants do.

so do the Israel defence forces ??
AW "I" dont like the idea of creating a new country in the name of religion so IMO idea of creating Isreal itself was begining of problems.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by R K Singh:
so do the Israel defence forces ??

The IDF has never attacked public transport. :roll:
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The IDF has never attacked public transport. :roll:

Oh sorry, it just blast houses.
Yes, these houses are not public, but private properties.
AW Please forgive me as I told you that foundation of Israel is based on the philosphy which "I" dont approve.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by R K Singh:

AW "I" dont like the idea of creating a new country in the name of religion so IMO idea of creating Isreal itself was begining of problems.

You think a bunch of boys got together around a beer keg and decided to make an Israel just to get a rise out of the rest of the world?


Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by R K Singh:
AW "I" dont like the idea of creating a new country in the name of religion so IMO idea of creating Isreal itself was begining of problems.
Actually it was the idea of killing Jews that was the beginning of the problem. The Jews tried to live peacefully in Palestine but massacres of Jews by Palestinians in the 1920's and 30's made the demand for a homeland hard to ignore.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1390
R K Singh: "I" dont like the idea of creating a new country in the name of religion so IMO idea of creating Israel itself was begining of problems.

That still doesn't change what the Palestinians are.

Thomas Paul: "Actually it was the idea of killing Jews that was the beginning of the problem. The Jews tried to live peacefully in Palestine but massacres of Jews by Palestinians in the 1920's and 30's made the demand for a homeland hard to ignore."

Yeah, but the Jewish refugees were buying land from rich Arabs and Turkish absentee landlords that Arab nationalists had hoped to steal once the British were gone.
One could argue that the Palestinians had the same right to massacre unwelcome Jewish refugees as France shall have should they someday decide there are too many Arabs in France.
What is tragic for the Arabs is that not only could they have made a millionaire of every Palestinian with the money they've spent on trying to destroy Israel, but at any time they could have limited the borders of Israel for all time simply by making peace. Israel would have sold them technological know-how for far less money than Europe and America charges. (Heck, Israel _gave_ technical training to poor countries in the 1950s and early 60s just to have foreign friends. They would have done the same for the Arabs, just to get revenge on Europe for the Holocaust.)
The only reason America is a world power instead of Germany is that Germany decided they'd rather destroy themselves than to allow Jews to prosper in Germany. The same thing happened in Russia; people wouldn't accept free-market reforms until most of the Jews were gone, because they were afraid that Russian Jews might benefit. (France would have been the world "hyper-power" had they not proven themselves unworthy by the campaign against the innocent Captain Alfred Dreyfuss, and their policy of turning Jews over to the Gestapo.)
One day soon the world will move beyond oil, just as it has moved beyond wood and coal, and by then it will be too late for an Arab renaissance, Israel or no Israel.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
What I know about Israel is following.
In late 1800s Zionist movement started to have a country for "Jews" [for no apparent reason*] and the land which was decided to capture was the one which was referenced in Bible. [why Country for jews is there, where it is today? Answer: because Bible says so. ]
Jews started moving to Palestine by buying lands [remember before late 1800, there were very few Jews in Palestine.] And then, in early 1900s, demanded a seperate country for them by dividing Palestine in the name of religion.
*And the reason they wanted a country for jews[in late 1800s] is that there was no country as Jew country.
This is what I know. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If Palestinians are attacking public transport, then it should not be done. It is wrong.
And if IDF is destroying houses of people OR whenever they feel they attack Palestine is also wrong.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

One could argue that the Palestinians had the same right to massacre unwelcome Jewish refugees as France shall have should they someday decide there are too many Arabs in France.

The same 'right' which Germany exercised circa 1939-45, Frank?
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

The only reason America is a world power instead of Germany is that Germany decided they'd rather destroy themselves than to allow Jews to prosper in Germany. The same thing happened in Russia; people wouldn't accept free-market reforms until most of the Jews were gone, because they were afraid that Russian Jews might benefit. (France would have been the world "hyper-power" had they not proven themselves unworthy by the campaign against the innocent Captain Alfred Dreyfuss, and their policy of turning Jews over to the Gestapo.)

This is such utter ballocks that it's hard to know where to start debunking it. The US was an economic juggernaught no later than 1880, long before 'Germany' decided anything about the fate of the Jews. The decisive political factor in the rise of the US to the top of the world power tables was the failure of the southern states to secede 1861-65. Germany certainly drove talented Jews out of Europe and liquidated far more, but most of them never made it to the US. It would be far more accurate to claim that the attitude of the Polish and Russian authorities caused the US to benefit in the relevant timeframe, because that is what caused the mass emigration of European Jews to the US between 1880 and 1920. The pre and post WWII emigration of the few remaining German, Austrian, and French Jews was minescule by comparison.
France's last chance to become a hyperpower certainly passed no later than Napoleon's Russian campaign of 1812 or very possibly when they lost out to Britain in the 7 years war, losing their Indian colonies and Canada. Arguably the persecution of the Hugenots was the tipping point in terms of French political economics. It had nothing to do with l'affaire Dreyfus or collaboration with the Gestapo deplorable as both of those were.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by R K Singh:
What I know about Israel is following.
In late 1800s Zionist movement started to have a country for "Jews" [for no apparent reason*] and the land which was decided to capture was the one which was referenced in Bible. [why Country for jews is there, where it is today? Answer: because Bible says so. ]
Jews started moving to Palestine by buying lands [remember before late 1800, there were very few Jews in Palestine.] And then, in early 1900s, demanded a seperate country for them by dividing Palestine in the name of religion.
*And the reason they wanted a country for jews[in late 1800s] is that there was no country as Jew country.
This is what I know. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Did they "capture" the land or did they "buy" it? You say both, yet these actions are very distinct and should be evaluated differently. If they bought the land and became the rightfull and legitimate owners of the bulk of the land, then whether the Bible or Herb tells them to form a separate nation, it does not seem such an outrageous thing to do. Under what conditions do you deem it acceptable to form a nation ??? Only by military conquest ???
QUOTE]

If Palestinians are attacking public transport, then it should not be done. It is wrong.

"If" ???
Perhaps your newspapers somehow did not cover all the suicide bombers on Israli buses this year?
Perhaps you missed the deliberate attack on a schoolchidlren's bus killing many tiny girls this year also ???

I am no expert on the history of Israel and am open to hearing both sides, but the deliberate murder of children, and then the rejoicing in it, is something that leaves me with little sympathy for those who do not condemn it...
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Did they "capture" the land or did they "buy" it?

If some Indians buy lot of plots in USA and then demand seperate nation and freedom from USA.
What will USA do ???
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
The whole Israel thing has got to be one of the biggest messes in human history. There's several thousand years worth of history that most people just cant get over, for a start. This, I think, means that most countries which try to help negotiate between the many sides just cant understand the level of disagreement between them.
There seem to be several other real big problems which are going to have to be solved at some point in the future:
* The wall. Perhaps a wall is the best option for now. It doesn't help encourage intercommunication, but something that stops bombers getting through could be a good thing. The trouble is the location of the wall. Building it through "Palestinian" territory is probably going to be a huge mistake. It makes Israel seem to be annexing land, which will only lead to more bombers having what they see as reasons for doing the things they do. The UN resolutions passed against it also reflect that fact that it is turning the opinion of many countries against Israel, something that terrorists could use to their own ends.
* The Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory. In an ideal world, this would not matter, but anyone can see that this is only going to antagonise the Palestinians. Reducing the number of these that are built, or pulling them out of the area would give Israel real credibility at the peace table.
* The lack of co-ordination between the Palestinian groups. One of the main problems with the peace negotiations seems to be that the Palestinian terrorist movement is split into so many different groups. There was a similar problem in NI when the UK was negotiating with the IRA. Even though the IRA would agree to something, there were several splinter groups who didn't agree and carried on. Perhaps one of the lessons that Israel and the Palestinians can learn from NI is that both sides gained far more from peace then from violence. Also, Arafat and his government don't have control over all of Palestine, so any form of collective negotiation seems to be doomed. Perhaps a *properly* democratically elected government in Palestine may help this, rather than a pseudo-government under the control of Arafat.
* Oil. Although oil doesn't have much to do with the Israel issue, it keeps the world interested and involved in the affairs of the middle east. Even if the western countries don't have policies aimed at oil-grabbing, a lot of people think they do, and the west will most likely not be trusted because of it. With Israel closely allied with the country most closely accused (although I do not do so) of interests in oil, it will be always mistrusted by the oil producing middle east countries. One day the west will not need oil so much and the whole world will change. The invention of a cheap and easy to use/refill electric car will probably be the most world changing invention since electricity. When the west pulls out of the middle east, and the oil producing countries loose their income, all sorts of things could happen.
* Acceptance that neither side will get all of the territory - Israel cannot peacefully control the west bank forever, and neither will Israel be removed. Both sides have to accept that they cannot totally "win" and need to make a compromise.
* Finally, there is only one country that really wants to get its hands dirty in the middle east and that is the US. The trouble is that the US are probably the least suitable country to do so, being such strong allies of Israel. There is a bit of a conundrum - a negotiator needs a bit of "clout" and needs to be neutral. Most neutral countries (for example Japan is fairly neutral to the middle-east) don't have the clout to do it and although the US has, it is not neutral. Maybe the EU could have a role here, but they seem unwilling to do so. The US is in a difficult position that it is under pressure to help in the middle east, but also under pressure to back Israel all the way. The number of UN resolutions (not security council, the other one) which only the US backed Israel on goes to show that they are still strongly influenced by what Israel wants. Many arabic countries will look at these votes and stop trusting the US. If the US were to vote against Israel it'd probably have a lot of trouble at home, so not much luck for it there. I'd really like to see the EU step in here - it would reduce the pressure on the US, and improve the standing of the EU.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by R K Singh:

If some Indians buy lot of plots in USA and then demand seperate nation and freedom from USA.
What will USA do ???

I am confused about the topic now, I thought we were talking about Israel?
Anyway, do you mean Native American Indians (who already have some degree of independence and exemptions from many laws/regulations and have local governments within the US) or are you talking about Indian Indians?
Maybe there is some difference as to whether a group has always lived in the land. Jews have lived in the land now known as Israel for thousands of years. More have returned to their ancestral lands recently and legally purchased land. It was my understanding that THEY did not unilaterly declare Israel a nation, it was done by UN.
So, in regards to the hypothetical question above, which probably pertains to Indian Indians, is much different in a number of respects to what actually happened in Israel :
1. Jews have for all practical purposes always lived in the land known as Israel. It is their native ancestral land.
2. They constituted a significant amount of the population, perhaps a majority, at the time of Israel's formation.
3. Israel was formed by sanction of UN (not known for its pro-Jewish activities/statements), not unilaterly declared by the Jews themselves.
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by R K Singh:

If some Indians buy lot of plots in USA and then demand seperate nation and freedom from USA.
What will USA do ???

If? It's already happened Kemosabe. The US Supreme Court threw it out of court.
It's been happening on a local level though. Indian reservations are frequently not subject to stae or local taxes or jurisdiction. An Indian tribe buys land, joins it to their reservation and Voila it's off the local tax role! Another group of Indians set up a low-cost gas station on the reservation. Not having to pay state fuel taxes it's 10 cents lower than any other fuel station in the area. Puts other fuel stations out of business.
How do we deal with it, RK? Live with it for the most part.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
If? It's already happened Kemosabe. The US Supreme Court threw it out of court.

I wish, they did not demand nation, a Hindu nation, because there is no Hindu nation in that 'continent'.[FYI: Nepal is the only Hindu nation.]
BTW why did they go to court these things are not demanded with in the framework of Law.
I wish the same thing could have been done in Palestine but it did not happen.
Live with it for the most part
Do they demand seperate nation, seperate currency, seperate defence force and seperate democratic govt. ??

By herb:
I thought we were talking about Israel???

I was trying to stimulate the situation or in simple English I was just giving example.
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
If? It's already happened Kemosabe.

What does Kemosabe mean?
Does it really mean stupid ??
Got it. If this is what you are saying.
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by R K Singh:

I was trying to stimulate the situation or in simple English I was just giving example.
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

I edited my response while you were posting.... :
So, in regards to the hypothetical question , which probably pertains to Indian Indians, is much different in a number of respects to what actually happened in Israel :
1. Jews have for all practical purposes always lived in the land known as Israel. It is their native ancestral land.
2. They constituted a significant amount of the population, perhaps a majority, at the time of Israel's formation.
3. Israel was formed by sanction of UN (not known for its pro-Jewish activities/statements), not unilaterly declared by the Jews themselves.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by R K Singh:
What does Kemosabe mean?

Kemosabe
My favorite translation:
One of Gary Larson's Far Side cartoons shows the Lone Ranger looking in an Indian dictionary and discovering that kemosabe is "an Apache expression for a horse's rear end."
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
1. Jews have for all practical purposes always lived in the land known as Israel. It is their native ancestral land.

I think this will help you to understand the reality. [actually right now I am not getting the link which had unbiased history of Israel-Palestine conflict. That was just plain history with dates and names.]
AW most of the time I find different truths, basically from both sides and both will tell different story.
But till now I have not seen any document supporting your statement. The only document which supports your statement is "The Holy Bible", I think.
I would like to listen the other story too if you can provide me some good link.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by R K Singh:

I was trying to stimulate the situation or in simple English I was just giving example.
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

But it is not relevant. The legitmacy of Israel does not, and cannot, in any conceviable way rest on what has happened in the US or what could happen in the US.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[QB][/QB]

Thanks
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by R K Singh:

What does Kemosabe mean?
Does it really mean stupid ??
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

Nah. There was an old radio show featuring The Lone Ranger and his Faithful Indian Companion, Tonto. Tonto called the Lone Ranger 'Kemosabe'.
While it may well mean 'horses-ass' in Apache I didn't mean it that way.
My favorite Lone Ranger joke concerns the time when he and Tonto were being circled by a large number of obviously hostile Indians. What do we do now, Tonto? asks the Lone Ranger. What do you mean 'we', White Man? replies Tonto.
Think about it. You may well find that joke applies to the current situation rather well.....
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
But it is not relevant.

How is it not relevant ??
OK, there is X community living in A country.
Now this X wants diferent country B by dividing A, as A has majority of Y community.
Sorry for taking names. Replace this X,Y and A,B with anything.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by R K Singh:
[QB]


But till now I have not seen any document supporting your statement. The only document which supports your statement is "The Holy Bible", I think.
[QB]

The historical evidence that the Jews lived in the land now known as Isreal since ancient times is beyound dispute. Even the link you gave admits it but cleverly downplays it. Almost a thousand years ago Judea (wonder where that name comes from?) was a province of the Roman empire.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
My favorite Lone Ranger joke concerns the time when he and Tonto were being circled by a large number of obviously hostile Indians. What do we do now, Tonto? asks the Lone Ranger. What do you mean 'we', White Man? replies Tonto.

Faithful friend in this way
Think about it. You may well find that joke applies to the current situation rather well.....

.
.
.
.
I hope I am getting it.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
The historical evidence that the Jews lived in the land now known as Isreal since ancient times is beyound dispute. Even the link you gave admits it but cleverly downplays it. Almost a thousand years ago Judea (wonder where that name comes from?) was a province of the Roman empire.

Aryans came from Europe in India almost 5/6000 yrs back. [as per one of the modern history theory, though it is debatable.]
Now we want Europe back
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
it is turning the opinion of many countries against Israel, something that terrorists could use to their own ends.
For the most part, the US is the only string supporter of Israel, and many countries have been turned against it long, long ago. Mostly due to the fact that it is a Jewish state.
The Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory. In an ideal world, this would not matter, but anyone can see that this is only going to antagonise the Palestinians.
The Israelis have destroyed settlements in the past when their opponent had been shown willing to actually work for peace. Israeli settlements had been bulldozed when land was handed back to Egypt. I believe the military commander in charge of that operation was Ariel Sharon. The flip-side of the Israeli's giving up the settlements however, is the Palestinians giving up the totaly unrealistic demand for the right-of-return. As long as they insist on this, there will never be peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Perhaps a *properly* democratically elected government in Palestine may help this, rather than a pseudo-government under the control of Arafat.
What do you mean by "properly" elected in this case? Arafat was elected by the Palestinians.
Maybe the EU could have a role here, but they seem unwilling to do so.
The EU is hardly regarded as neutral. They are extremely distrusted (rightfully so?) by the Israelis.
The number of UN resolutions (not security council, the other one) which only the US backed Israel on goes to show that they are still strongly influenced by what Israel wants.
That's quite a conclusion to draw. I haven't figured out why people keep thinking there is this Jewish conspiracy forcing the US to back Israel. We back them for several reasons, not because their is some small group of influential lobbyists dangling purse strings. We back them because they are a nation similar to us in values. We back them because they are the only democracy in the region. We back them out of kinship. The US has more Jews than does Israel, and many Israeli citizens hold dual-citizenship in the US. Most recently, we closely identify with their fight against terrorism, and just as importanly, the Palestinians continued support and use of terrorism alienates them from the average American.
It's not a conspiracy. Just because a majority of a group supports one side, particularly when a large portion of that majority have many historical reasons to be against a particular side of the conflict, does not mean that the minority is not in the right. If anything, it shows that some countries have no problem accepting terrorism as a weapon if they think the end results are justified.
I'd really like to see the EU step in here - it would reduce the pressure on the US, and improve the standing of the EU.
Again, when Israel has such a distrust for the EU and the UN, it's probably best if the relegate themselves to a supporting role. Both the Palestinians and Israel recognize who the only party who can effectively mediate is. We've demonstrated that we can effectively restrain Israel. The one step that is required, is for the Palestinians to give up terrorism. If the terrorist organizations (or as they often like to call themselves, "charities") were not receiving a steady supply of funding and support from other Arab countries and Europe, they might find it much more difficult to carry out their operations.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by R K Singh:

Aryans came from Europe in India almost 5/6000 yrs back. [as per one of the modern history theory, though it is debatable.]
Now we want Europe back

Makes no sense. The Aryans still reside in Europe.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Makes no sense. The Aryans still reside in Europe.

So let us say, now there are no Aryans in Europe, then can Indians take Europe back
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by R K Singh:

Aryans came from Europe in India almost 5/6000 yrs back. [as per one of the modern history theory, though it is debatable.]
Now we want Europe back

Since the last several thousand years at least, there have always been Jews in Israel. They fact that they have been there continuosly for that long time period is relevent.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Perhaps a *properly* democratically elected government in Palestine may help this, rather than a pseudo-government under the control of Arafat.
What do you mean by "properly" elected in this case? Arafat was elected by the Palestinians.

I wanted to point out this, but some how got engaged in some foolish activity.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by R K Singh:

So let us say, now there are no Aryans in Europe, then can Indians take Europe back
[ December 09, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

your hypos get more and more less relevant...
If the Ayans left for thousands of years, then did they not abandon their claims to the land?
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: The war on terrorism