It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Amberite
There is no "occupation" because Israel was lawfully given to the Jews by the UN.
Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by JanusFIN
according to some here
schools = Bomb making factories and there for are justified
i wont mention who said that.
Those Kidz are Future terrorists and education is Bad
Originally posted by antonia
Originally posted by Amberite
There is no "occupation" because Israel was lawfully given to the Jews by the UN.
It was never the UN's to give.
Originally posted by DantesLost
Amberite
Actually,some British politicians started it after they well and truly shafted the Arabs.The land was promised to them if they helped defeat the Ottoman Empire,which they did.These British politicians then went back on all their promises.
Under the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed from Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the controversial Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised to establish a Jewish state in Palestine in exchange for the Jewish financial support to the British in their war against Ottomans and Germans.
David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves...politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves...The country is theirs,because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. .
Originally posted by SkepticalSpectacle
reply to post by JanusFIN
You can't trust anything that comes out of the Iraninan propaganda. Those sources are of Iranian origin.
Like Mike Singh said in his thread, they like to lie, and make stuff up using theor propaganda machine.
Those blood stains look more like ketchup.
So why isn't the rest of the classroom in rubble?
It's fake I tell you. FAKE!
[edit on 6-1-2009 by SkepticalSpectacle]
Originally posted by Amberite
Originally posted by DantesLost
Amberite
Actually,some British politicians started it after they well and truly shafted the Arabs.The land was promised to them if they helped defeat the Ottoman Empire,which they did.These British politicians then went back on all their promises.
Really? Because the actual history is the exact opposite. From History of Palestine (Wikipedia)
Under the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed from Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the controversial Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised to establish a Jewish state in Palestine in exchange for the Jewish financial support to the British in their war against Ottomans and Germans.
As I said, it looks like you have the entire situation backwards.
[edit on 6-1-2009 by Amberite]
With Africa and Asia long since claimed by the other Great Powers, above all Great Britain, German policy set out to develop a special economic sphere in the imperial provinces of the debt-ridden Ottoman Empire. The policy was termed “penetration pacifique” an economic dependency which would be sealed with German military advisors and equipment. Initially, the policy was not greeted with joy in Paris, St. Petersburg or London, but it was tolerated. Deutsche Bank even sought, unsuccessfully, to enlist City of London financial backing for the keystone of the Ottoman expansion policy—the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway project, a project of enormous scale and complexity that would link the interior of Anatolia and Mesopotamia (today Iraq) to Germany. What Berlin and Deutsche Bank did not say was that they had secured subsurface mineral rights, including for oil along the path of the railway, and that their geologists had discovered petroleum in Mosul, Kirkuk and Basra.
The conversion of the British Navy under Churchill to oil from coal meant a high risk strategy as England had abundant coal but no then-known oil. It secured a major concession from the Shah of Persia in the early 1900’s. The Baghdad rail link was increasingly seen in London as a threat to precisely this oil security. The British response to the growing German disruption of the European balance of power after the 1890’s was to carefully craft a series of public and secret alliances with France and with Russia—former rivals—to encircle Germany. As well, she deployed a series of less public intrigues to disrupt the Balkans and encourage a revolt against the Ottoman Sultan via the Young Turks that severely weakened the prospects for the German Drang nach Osten. The dynamic of the rise of German assertiveness, including in addition to the Baghdad rail, the decision in 1900 to build a modern navy over two decades that could rival England’s, set the stage for the outbreak of a war in August 1914 whose real significance was a colossal and tragic struggle for who would succeed the ebbing power of the British Empire. The resolution of that epic struggle was to take a second world war and another quarter century before the victor was undeniably established. The role of oil in the events leading to war in 1914 is too little appreciated. When the historical process behind the war is examined from this light a quite different picture emerges. The British Empire in the decades following 1873 and the American Century hegemony in the decades following approximately 1973 have more in common than is generally appreciated.