The movie: Jennin Jennin

[R.Carter]

Originally posted by thop
at the gas station in ariel? 27.10?

No, I'm pretty sure that gas station incident was covered.

They are most likely talking about this incident

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,829960,00.html

I can only assume that since only one bystander was killed it wasn't widely reported.

[Gurm]

Well I'll be damned, it WAS covered. *hmph*

- Gurm

[GNEP]

Gurm you would like the Guardian.

I do. I doubt very much that KvH would.

[SpiralDragon]

Ok first of all Jenin Jennin is not a film it is a documentery.... films tell a fictitious story.... documenteries tell a real story (or at least one side of it)

secondly... i am realy tierd of seeing both sieds overly victimise them selves and blame each other for it... i will put it to you this way both sides are acting like children where the israilies are the bully and the palestinians that fight dirty..... if you want to complain let me remind you that both sides brought this on them selves..... so shut up and grow up.........

[SpiralDragon]

Originally posted by Dogbert
I This movie has the potential of becoming the tool for many anti-israelis and anti-semits in the years to come as this movie portrays the IDF as worse than the third Reich's wehrmacht.

dont forget that the palestinians ARE semits too....


and as far as the third Reich's wehrmacht argument goes you should know that their is no such thing as a clean war.... soldiers will comit atrocities no mater what....... believe me i know this all to well...... and you know it too.....

i understand why you are upset... but calling the other side a lier when all the Israilies have done throughout the past few decades is lie is hypocrasi at the first rate.....

edit: this is not personal so dont take it that way

[Umfriend]

Dragon,

1. There is no hypocracy in calling a liar a liar. If the caller is a liar as well, the liar should call the lie, not tell his own.
2. Theft and murder are both crimes, but they are not evenly bad, agreed? So the Wehrmacht argument may very well be valid, assuming the movie (sry but it appears not to be a documentary IMO) indeed portrays the IDF as being worse then 3rd reich wehrmacht.

And boy, were the Wehrmacht a bunch of bad guys. They;d have flattened any city completely as long as there was any resistance. Not only that, they'd forage the land for themselves and ship any excess to the Fatherland, leaving the conquered people without food and fuel.

Indeed, it would help if parties "grew up". Being truthfull and accurate (and recall false statements) is part of that.

Umf

[Joel]

I have to disagree with some of what is being said here. The Jewish people were more than willing to live peacefully with their Arab neighbors and probably would not have even asked for a creation of an Israel state if it had not been for the constant mistreatment of the Jewish people by the Arabs. Even then they were only given a little sliver piece of shit land that they then worked very hard to make it what it is today. Which even though the rest of the Arab world has 99% of the rest of it they still are so obsessed with this one little piece. Hell so badly so that within hours of the creation of the Israel state they were attacked by the rest of the Arab world. Jealousy can be so destructive. And what is even worst is that the majority of the Palestinian people are either too stupid or too brainwashed to see that they are only being used as pawns for the rest of the Arab world. If the rest of the Arab world really cared about them, as much as they say they do, then they would do the same thing the Israelis did, for the rest of the Jews in the surrounding countries after the creation of the state of Israel, and accept them in with open arms. I wonder why they won't????

Joel

[Jammrock]

Does the movie have a old-as-Moses Ah-nold Swartzenhagger running around blowing up stuff just for the hell of it? DOes it have scantily clad babe with guns? Was it animated in Japan?

No?

Than it's not worth the time to discuss it...

Jammrock

[Umfriend]

Joel, I don't think what you say is completely fair either...

The desire to establish a jewish nation was present amongst jews in Europe prior to WWII and Nazi rule. Stating that

The Jewish people were more than willing to live peacefully with their Arab neighbors and probably would not have even asked for a creation of an Israel state if it had not been for the constant mistreatment of the Jewish people by the Arabs.

is misleading the least. It may be valid for some jews, but I don't think you could state it as general as you did.

The "99%" reference sounds convincing but makes no sense. The jews never claimed land that was 99 times more than what they had, and the Arabs do not hold 99 times that therefor (but maybe you meant something else than I read in it).

Pawn statement I agree with.

But the last part will not hold because it does not address that:
1. The palestinians may not want to move (they have been there for while too, in fact, longer than a lot of jews have (which were there from the death of mozed till the start of the diaspora, if I am not mistaken).
2. The US cares a lot about the Iraqi citizens and wan to free them from the oppresing governemt, why not simply take m in?

May very well be wrong on all, but I'd like to learn how.

Rgds,
Umf

[goldstein]

Joel, part of the problem about the "sliver of land" is that it holds some tremendously important religious artifacts for Muslims (as well as Christians and Jews). The Wailing Wall is not only a holy place of the Jews, it is an integral part of the mosque (grounds). The Muslims call it al-Buraq, the name of the horse with which Muhammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem. This religious factor, and others, transcend value of the the geographic area beyond simple real estate. And create accordingly, very possessive and defensive postures by all groups involved. It would have been less devisive if Israel was not "created" by the colonial powers in such a religiously sensitive area. Personally, I find the weather too hot and would prefer parts of Poland

[Umfriend]

Yeah well, the argument that the mosque is the third holiest place for muslims does not cut it with me....

That's what you get when you willfuly build holy places on top of others' holy places. They should have built it a few miles out.

What's the name again of that mosque that was built on the ruins of that hindu (or budhist, can't remember) temple?

How about Istanbul, where they took over the aya sofia?

Before you know it, they'll reclaim Spain....

And besides, I am an amorite
Umf

[goldstein]

Amorite
In biblical tradition the Amorites with the Canaanites and the Hittites occupied the land (Palestine) before Israel. The Bible uses the term for the population of a whole area (e.g. Gen 15:16; Dt 1:7). Amorites are associated as Semites with Palestine in early sources and became the rulers of Mesopotamia in the early second millennium BC. At least the Amorite king, Og, is thought by the Bible to have been among the last of the giants (Dt 3:1ff.; Num 21:33ff.).

[Umfriend]

Indeed, we are the only ones with a valid claim to parts of the land that is now called Israel. We built Jeruzalem, and it should therefor be ours.....

edit:The real message was the rest of my post though

Umf

[Dogbert]

According to the Kuran, nothing in the land of Israel is holy to the muslims.

[Umfriend]

Now I am not sure about this, but I once understood that the Quran does command muslims to defend land once they've conquered it. Any conquered land is "holy". But I could be way off the mark here. Any muslim care to comment?

Umf