National Guard stages an exercise near a gun shop, and gets an interesting reaction

[Little-Acorn]

The link leads to a standard article from a paranoid gun-hater, saying he wants to start confiscating all guns or something. SSDD, not really worth reading.

But if you scroll about halfway down the page, there's an interesting comment, from a member of the Iowa National Guard. Apparently they staged an exercise on an abandoned building, to approach it with their weapons, break in, and secure it.

But... that abandoned building they were going to use, was next to an open and operating gun store. And rumors got out, inaccurate ones, and the local people started thinking the National Guard was coming to close down the gun store and confiscate its merchandise instead.

The National Guard folks got a reception they didn't expect... and saw the wisdom in explaining themselves, very quickly.

(I cleaned up some spelling and punctuation errors in the comment)

----------------------------------------------------------

Link: http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=14934&TM=35600.75

Posted: Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Article comment by: J S

The Iowa National guard did a training exercise in a small town to "clear" an abandoned building... next to a gun store. Through rumor, the people thought we had come to close the gun store and take the guns... needless to say we where very quickly outnumbered and outgunned. As we quickly explained, we swore an oath defend the constitution and we have the right to disobey any "Unlawful" order that conflicts with it. So (addressing the politician) if you plan to declare war on the public brace yourself because it will be ugly. You do not have people on your side.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The Iowa Guard rumors were on HuffPo and Daily Kos. No freaking wonder they were wrong.

[jafar00]

Stories like these (and Alex Jones going mental at Piers Morgan) just prove that gun nuts are just that. Nuts!

Even more reason to take away their dangerous toys. You also should probably put rubber on sharp corners and replace their knives and forks with those kid safe plastic ones.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Stories like these (and Alex Jones going mental at Piers Morgan) just prove that gun nuts are just that. Nuts!

Even more reason to take away their dangerous toys. You also should probably put rubber on sharp corners and replace their knives and forks with those kid safe plastic ones.

go stone an infidel, you putz.

[PostmodernProphet]

actually, the story is bogus......back in February 2009 the Iowa National Guard had scheduled an exercise in urban combat in Arcadia, Iowa, which did have a gun store, but the general population didn't like the idea as well as the town council had and after public reaction, permission for the exercise was revoked......it never happened.....

http://www.infowars.com/iowa-national-guard-to-train-for-gun-confiscation/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Stories like these (and Alex Jones going mental at Piers Morgan) just prove that gun nuts are just that. Nuts!

Even more reason to take away their dangerous toys. You also should probably put rubber on sharp corners and replace their knives and forks with those kid safe plastic ones.

Send this recommendation to your friends at Hamas, did you ????
I didn't think so........ --Tyr

[Thunderknuckles]

Stories like these (and Alex Jones going mental at Piers Morgan) just prove that gun nuts are just that. Nuts!

Even more reason to take away their dangerous toys. You also should probably put rubber on sharp corners and replace their knives and forks with those kid safe plastic ones.
I don't understand how this squares with your world view. You support armed Palestinians resistance to the tyranny of the Zionist occupation do you not?
This is the same principal that underscores our 2nd Amendment but were are the ones who are nuts?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't understand how this squares with your world view. You support armed Palestinians resistance to the tyranny of the Zionist occupation do you not?
This is the same principal that underscores our 2nd Amendment but were are the ones who are nuts?

that's just different.

[Marcus Aurelius]

actually, the story is bogus......back in February 2009 the Iowa National Guard had scheduled an exercise in urban combat in Arcadia, Iowa, which did have a gun store, but the general population didn't like the idea as well as the town council had and after public reaction, permission for the exercise was revoked......it never happened.....

http://www.infowars.com/iowa-national-guard-to-train-for-gun-confiscation/

I knew there was a reason I couldn't find jack on this. thanks.

[jafar00]

I don't understand how this squares with your world view. You support armed Palestinians resistance to the tyranny of the Zionist occupation do you not?
This is the same principal that underscores our 2nd Amendment but were are the ones who are nuts?

The US hasn't been occupied by a foreign power though. Some of you just don't agree with the President you got from the election.

Anyway, doesn't the 2nd Amendment mention a "well regulated militia"? Somehow I doubt that definition refers to a rowdy bunch of gun nuts converging on the White House shouting "Dey turk err guuurrrrnns!" (in a southpark voice). The well regulated militia was intended for the security of the state to defend against foreign invaders, not against the democratically elected government.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The US hasn't been occupied by a foreign power though. Some of you just don't agree with the President you got from the election.

Anyway, doesn't the 2nd Amendment mention a "well regulated militia"? Somehow I doubt that definition refers to a rowdy bunch of gun nuts converging on the White House shouting "Dey turk err guuurrrrnns!" (in a southpark voice). The well regulated militia was intended for the security of the state to defend against foreign invaders, not against the democratically elected government.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Well regulated militia, and right of the people to keep and bear arms... two separate ideas in the same sentence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Meaning of "the right of the People" Justice Antonin Scalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia), writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[122] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-District_of_Columbia_v_Heller-122)



Meaning of "keep and bear arms" In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[122] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-District_of_Columbia_v_Heller-122)

[Thunderknuckles]

The US hasn't been occupied by a foreign power though. Some of you just don't agree with the President you got from the election.
Being occupied by a foreign power isn't the argument. The right of the people to defend themselves against tyrannical government, foreign or domestic, is the argument.
This is the underlying reason for the Second Amendment. It seems to me that if you hold the view that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves from the tyranny of Israel, then you would support our right to defend ourselves from our own tyrannical government.

Side note: I do not believe the U.S. or the Obama Administration is tyrannical but they are continuously encroaching upon our freedoms in the name of security and this is a cause of great concern as well as a reason for even greater vigilance with respect to the Second Amendment.

[NightTrain]

The US hasn't been occupied by a foreign power though. Some of you just don't agree with the President you got from the election.

Anyway, doesn't the 2nd Amendment mention a "well regulated militia"? Somehow I doubt that definition refers to a rowdy bunch of gun nuts converging on the White House shouting "Dey turk err guuurrrrnns!" (in a southpark voice). The well regulated militia was intended for the security of the state to defend against foreign invaders, not against the democratically elected government.


You'd best educate yourself as to American History if you intend to engage in these kinds of debates. In fact, your world history knowledge is sorely lacking.

The US was indeed invaded by England. They even burned down the predecessor to the White House.

[jimnyc]

Stories like these (and Alex Jones going mental at Piers Morgan) just prove that gun nuts are just that. Nuts!

Even more reason to take away their dangerous toys. You also should probably put rubber on sharp corners and replace their knives and forks with those kid safe plastic ones.

If people are over the edge, and literally nutso, I would agree with you. But there's a big difference between some gun nuts - and the 2nd amendment. Most people that do nutty things with guns couldn't care less about the 2nd amendment, or the laws for that fact.

[jafar00]

Being occupied by a foreign power isn't the argument. The right of the people to defend themselves against tyrannical government, foreign or domestic, is the argument.

I get what you mean, but you don't have a tyrannical govt by any definition. Is armed revolt really the answer to your woes?


This is the underlying reason for the Second Amendment. It seems to me that if you hold the view that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves from the tyranny of Israel, then you would support our right to defend ourselves from our own tyrannical government.

The 2nd amendment would apply to the Palestinians as they are defending themselves against a foreign, tyrannical occupying power. In a democratic society as yours, there is no need for guns to protect yourself against the govt. You can just vote for someone different at the next election.


You'd best educate yourself as to American History if you intend to engage in these kinds of debates. In fact, your world history knowledge is sorely lacking.

The US was indeed invaded by England. They even burned down the predecessor to the White House.

The 2nd amendment was born out of the English occupation I believe. To have a "well regulated militia" that can be used to defend against an invasion.


If people are over the edge, and literally nutso, I would agree with you. But there's a big difference between some gun nuts - and the 2nd amendment. Most people that do nutty things with guns couldn't care less about the 2nd amendment, or the laws for that fact.

The fact that criminals have easy, unfettered access to guns is of concern to me. If you got the weapons of the street and regulated them better, you would have a lot less massacres going on in your schools.

[cadet]

I get what you mean, but you don't have a tyrannical govt by any definition. Is armed revolt really the answer to your woes?



The 2nd amendment would apply to the Palestinians as they are defending themselves against a foreign, tyrannical occupying power. In a democratic society as yours, there is no need for guns to protect yourself against the govt. You can just vote for someone different at the next election.

Just because everything is nice and dandy now, doesn't mean that it will be in the future.


The 2nd amendment was born out of the English occupation I believe. To have a "well regulated militia" that can be used to defend against an invasion.

Not JUST an invasion, also if our Gov't goes too power hungry. Unlike other countries, it's a plan to keep the Gov't under control by the PEOPLE


The fact that criminals have easy, unfettered access to guns is of concern to me. If you got the weapons of the street and regulated them better, you would have a lot less massacres going on in your schools.

Do you really think it would matter? no matter what country you're in, or how stingy the laws are, if one works hard enough they can get a gun. there's a thing called the black market, where there's no regulation on anything, and it's worldwide.
When someone bad has a gun, it's a threat to those without the means to protect themselves.
If a good guy has a gun, it's a savior to anyone under threat by a bad guy.
You make it so everyone can hold guns all the time, there would be plenty of bad people saying they don't want to do the crime, cause they'll just be shot down before they can do anything.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
Which means, when it comes right down to it, and your house has been broken into, the cops can't do shit. And it's up to you to protect your family. But if you don't think your family is worth the extra protection, that's your own fault.

[tailfins]

The fact that criminals have easy, unfettered access to guns is of concern to me. If you got the weapons of the street and regulated them better, you would have a lot less massacres going on in your schools.

You can't have a lot less of something there isn't a lot of to begin with. The only thing there is a lot of is the news coverage.

[jimnyc]

The fact that criminals have easy, unfettered access to guns is of concern to me. If you got the weapons of the street and regulated them better, you would have a lot less massacres going on in your schools.

Any and all regulation won't change how criminals operate. We have like 2000 gun laws on the books AND areas that are gun free zones, where criminals and law abiding people shouldn't have a gun at all. It does NOTHING to deter the criminals.

If a criminal wants to do an evil deed, no amount of laws are going to change that.

[Little-Acorn]

If you got the weapons of the street and

Yet another government-uber-alles stooge who supports having thousands of SWAT teams going from house to house, breaking down doors, arresting the (formerly) law-abiding people within, and ransacking every house to make sure they've got all the guns... of people who have never used them in any crime, never threatened anyone, never even worried anyone with them.

That's what it would take, you know, to actually "get the weapons off the street", after 90% of Americans peacefully turned them in and 10% refused.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The fact that criminals have easy, unfettered access to guns is of concern to me. If you got the weapons of the street and regulated them better, you would have a lot less massacres going on in your schools.

The only guns that the government can get off the streets are LEGAL ones. Criminals will not turn their guns in, or have them someplace they can be confiscated from.

You're really not very bright, are you.

[Thunderknuckles]

In a democratic society as yours, there is no need for guns to protect yourself against the govt. You can just vote for someone different at the next election.
This is what I suspected you would say and I think it is the fallacy that those wanting guns outlawed also buy into. We think this great democracy will always be that way and therefore we have nothing to worry about. History tells us otherwise. Rome was once a Republic as well...

[Kathianne]

This is what I suspected you would say and I think it is the fallacy that those wanting guns outlawed also buy into. We think this great democracy will always be that way and therefore we have nothing to worry about. History tells us otherwise. Rome was once a Republic as well...

Yep, pretty much like the British when they were trying to confiscate the weapons at Lexington and Concord.

[Robert A Whit]

The US hasn't been occupied by a foreign power though. Some of you just don't agree with the President you got from the election.

Anyway, doesn't the 2nd Amendment mention a "well regulated militia"? Somehow I doubt that definition refers to a rowdy bunch of gun nuts converging on the White House shouting "Dey turk err guuurrrrnns!" (in a southpark voice). The well regulated militia was intended for the security of the state to defend against foreign invaders, not against the democratically elected government.

Has Australia ever fought a war with itself?

This country did.

While the Civil war was in the 1860s, the tone of that war exists today.

While the story was bogus, so needs no comment, the way we will fight for our freedom is real.

[NightTrain]

I get what you mean, but you don't have a tyrannical govt by any definition. Is armed revolt really the answer to your woes?

This is the point you don't understand. The Government COULD suddenly try to confiscate all guns from the general public. If our elected government decided to disarm the general public, what is to stop them from doing so? Yes, firearms. The ones in the houses with people that can use them.


The 2nd amendment would apply to the Palestinians as they are defending themselves against a foreign, tyrannical occupying power. In a democratic society as yours, there is no need for guns to protect yourself against the govt. You can just vote for someone different at the next election.

No, it wouldn't.

Your "Palestinians" are displaced Egyptians, Syrians and Lebonese that previously lived in their national borders, prior to getting their asses kicked by Israel. Suddenly they found themselves on the other side of the border, and now they are in Israeli owned country DUE TO THE FACT THAT THOSE COUNTRIES SECEDED THAT TERRITORY DUE TO LOSING THOSE WARS AND IN ORDER TO GAIN PEACE, THEY WILLINGLY GAVE UP THAT TERRITORY!

They did that so that Israel wouldn't take MORE territory. They were beaten, and they knew it.

That is the truth. Research it on your own and stop with your bullshit "Palestinians" routine.



2nd amendment was born out of the English occupation I believe. To have a "well regulated militia" that can be used to defend against an invasion.

I'm glad I taught you something; a public acknowledgement would be in order.

No, this is to ensure that the general American public has the means to fight a revolution against a government that steps out of bounds and tries to disarm the general public.



The fact that criminals have easy, unfettered access to guns is of concern to me. If you got the weapons of the street and regulated them better, you would have a lot less massacres going on in your schools.

You are a fool. Do you think for ONE SECOND that a criminal can't get a gun?

By making a law restricting law abiding citizens from getting guns, only muslim terrorists and criminals will have guns!

See how fucking stupid that logic is?

[NightTrain]

Come in, Jafar.

Over.


Seriously, don't think that pulling a Gabby lends you credibility; it doesn't.

Running when you're beaten only shows that you were wrong.

You have established that you are wrong by running from your threads.

Be a man.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Jafar00 The fact that criminals have easy, unfettered access to guns is of concern to me. If you got the weapons of the street and regulated them better, you would have a lot less massacres going on in your schools.


You are a fool. Do you think for ONE SECOND that a criminal can't get a gun?

By making a law restricting law abiding citizens from getting guns, only muslim terrorists and criminals will have guns!

See how fucking stupid that logic is?
Yes, he is... and no, he doesn't.

[jafar00]

Not JUST an invasion, also if our Gov't goes too power hungry. Unlike other countries, it's a plan to keep the Gov't under control by the PEOPLE

You don't need guns to have a revolution. The Egyptians got rid of their dictator using rocks made out of the very roads they were protesting on.


You can't have a lot less of something there isn't a lot of to begin with. The only thing there is a lot of is the news coverage.

There was another school shooting yesterday. Are you these massacres are not real. Just news coverage?

How many more shot kids will it take for you to realise that more guns is not the solution?


Any and all regulation won't change how criminals operate. We have like 2000 gun laws on the books AND areas that are gun free zones, where criminals and law abiding people shouldn't have a gun at all. It does NOTHING to deter the criminals.

If a criminal wants to do an evil deed, no amount of laws are going to change that.

If you have high crime, mixing a load of guns in will not lead to a desirable outcome. Better law enforcement is needed along with programs to deal with the root causes of the crime. If you feel it has become so dangerous that you need a gun to protect yourself, then your society is in desperate need of an overhaul.


Yet another government-uber-alles stooge who supports having thousands of SWAT teams going from house to house, breaking down doors, arresting the (formerly) law-abiding people within, and ransacking every house to make sure they've got all the guns... of people who have never used them in any crime, never threatened anyone, never even worried anyone with them.

That's what it would take, you know, to actually "get the weapons off the street", after 90% of Americans peacefully turned them in and 10% refused.

I guess heavily fining the holdouts until they hand the guns over would work. I refuse to believe that Americans are so stupid to do it though. They did the same in Australia and nobody refused. It was just people abiding by the law.



Your "Palestinians" are displaced Egyptians, Syrians and Lebonese that previously lived in their national borders, prior to getting their asses kicked by Israel. Suddenly they found themselves on the other side of the border, and now they are in Israeli owned country DUE TO THE FACT THAT THOSE COUNTRIES SECEDED THAT TERRITORY DUE TO LOSING THOSE WARS AND IN ORDER TO GAIN PEACE, THEY WILLINGLY GAVE UP THAT TERRITORY!

Tell that to the people who have lived there for generations and whom call themselves Palestinians. How would you feel about being called a displaced European?


Come in, Jafar.

Over.


Seriously, don't think that pulling a Gabby lends you credibility; it doesn't.

Running when you're beaten only shows that you were wrong.

You have established that you are wrong by running from your threads.

Be a man.

What is it with you people and your impatience? I have a life you know. I don't live on this forum! :p

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You don't need guns to have a revolution. The Egyptians got rid of their dictator using rocks made out of the very roads they were protesting on.



There was another school shooting yesterday. Are you these massacres are not real. Just news coverage?

How many more shot kids will it take for you to realise that more guns is not the solution?





In case you missed it Jafar, the only gun s at that school were with the shooter so there were not more guns there! That's the point, it was a gun free zone, aka --invitational victim zone !
Had there been adults there with gun the guy may have been stopped before ever reaching those kids. One guy like me could have taken him out like a piece of cake!
The answer isn't -invitational victim zones, those are insane solutions put forth by the same asshats now saying take guns from law abiding citizens will secure our kids at school!
Want to stop this from happening set up a program to have conceal carry teachers mixed with a force consisting of retired or off-duty police in our schools. Far better and would be far more effective than taking our means to defend ourselves , our homes and our property. It isn't really about protecting schools its about taking our guns!
The dems/leftists are just using this as they will use anything to further their insane and Unconstitutional agenda.
They need to be destroyed and this nation will be better off IMHO..-TYR

[NightTrain]

You don't need guns to have a revolution. The Egyptians got rid of their dictator using rocks made out of the very roads they were protesting on.

While I know that you muzzies are fond of throwing rocks, using a rifle is a tad more efficient in defending yourself.




There was another school shooting yesterday. Are you these massacres are not real. Just news coverage?

How many more shot kids will it take for you to realise that more guns is not the solution?

Just ONE competent armed civilian would have put an immediate end to it.

See the logic?




If you have high crime, mixing a load of guns in will not lead to a desirable outcome. Better law enforcement is needed along with programs to deal with the root causes of the crime. If you feel it has become so dangerous that you need a gun to protect yourself, then your society is in desperate need of an overhaul.

Cops can't be everywhere at once. Any sane person would prefer to have the ability to defend himself or others when there's a psychopath on the loose shooting people, rather than cowering down and waiting for the bullet.




I guess heavily fining the holdouts until they hand the guns over would work. I refuse to believe that Americans are so stupid to do it though. They did the same in Australia and nobody refused. It was just people abiding by the law.

A shame that Australia willingly allowed themselves to be defenseless when a criminal starts shooting. How very horrifying it would be to get shot and watch your loved ones be shot by a criminal and not be able to do anything about it.




Tell that to the people who have lived there for generations and whom call themselves Palestinians. How would you feel about being called a displaced European?

Tell me, smart one, where was the Nation of Palestine? Who was their leader? Where was Palestine's borders?

Oh, that's right. There never was such a nation. Who invented this mythical nation?

The Soviets? Part of a propaganda campaign? I guess that really was money well spent, 30 years after the collapse of that nation.

I wonder why that Egyptian throwing rocks chooses to call himself a Palestinian? Is it because he is mentally incapable of knowing what his nationality is? Or is it because he's ashamed to be an Egyptian that his own country abandoned him and his family after losing that territory in a war?


What is it with you people and your impatience? I have a life you know. I don't live on this forum! :p

We are all still waiting with bated breath regarding your bullshit Al-Jazeera article you so boldly posted and then fled the thread.

[jafar00]

While I know that you muzzies are fond of throwing rocks, using a rifle is a tad more efficient in defending yourself.

I think a lot more people would have died in the Egyptian revolution had it degenerated into an armed civil war much the same as Syria with 60,000+ dead. The fact that the protesters were unarmed except for rocks showed that their moral character was far above police who used live ammunition on unarmed protesters.


Just ONE competent armed civilian would have put an immediate end to it.

See the logic?

I'm shocked that you feel that it's necessary to arm your teachers. All I had to worry about when I went to school was the odd snake wriggling out of the bush. Our Headmaster used his cane (the same he hit us with!) to kill the snakes which were then preserved in formaldehyde and placed in the library for study.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a properly trained and licensed marshal of some kind in the school rather than a bunch of poorly trained teachers who I am sure have more to worry about (like teaching) than checking to make sure they were armed before heading off to the classroom.


Cops can't be everywhere at once. Any sane person would prefer to have the ability to defend himself or others when there's a psychopath on the loose shooting people, rather than cowering down and waiting for the bullet.

Yes I can see how well that is working out for you. And if someone does happen to be armed when a massacre is going on, it could lead to more deaths with more bullets flying around.

In the end, do you really want your streets to be like this?...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaJwgHYOaQk


A shame that Australia willingly allowed themselves to be defenseless when a criminal starts shooting. How very horrifying it would be to get shot and watch your loved ones be shot by a criminal and not be able to do anything about it.

Thank God it's not that dangerous here. The last time there was a massacre here was..... 1996, just before there was a big weapons confiscation. Funny that.

That's 17 years ago.


Tell me, smart one, where was the Nation of Palestine? Who was their leader? Where was Palestine's borders?

The history of Palestine is a long one starting with the Canaanites, Filistines (whom the area is named after) and Israelites. Later Islamic empires controlled Palestine (and the Romans, yes) and apart from a brief occupation by the Byzantine Christians (who killed any Jews that tried to enter). The Filistines and Canaanite ancestors are still there.

Some leaders in history include Dawood (as), Sulayman (as), Omar (ra), Salahuddin Ayyubi, Sultan Abdul Hameed....etc....


Oh, that's right. There never was such a nation. Who invented this mythical nation?

Who are you to tell people they didn't exist? You sound like a zionist who justifies the massacre and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by saying they don't exist.