Arab animals massacred Jews way before 1948

[MJB12741]

And Israel with their damn Zionist agenda makes peace offerings to these animals, builds a security fence & concedes them their own Jew free land so they stay in Israel. Shame on Israel.

When the infamous Mufti said in 1918 "...the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the future of this country."

 

[irosie91]

Silly tinnie has already ------sorta ---addressed the issue
He justified the hebron massacre------I know the justification--
it relates to jews living in palestine on land they purchased
which Tinnie KNOWS is a crime and he is right---it
is a crime under strict Shariah law------but it was not
a crime under OTTOMAN LAW at that time and in that
place For those who do not
know------tinnie can use his logic to justify the murder of
several million Armenians --circa 1915, using the same logic
no doubt he does

 

[P F Tinmore]

Load of crap, irosie. I never said any of those things.

 

[irosie91]

Load of crap, irosie. I never said any of those things.

what things, load of crap tinnie?

 

[Hossfly]

Load of crap, irosie. I never said any of those things.

Oh but you did. You're 1st shift Tinnie. Check out what 2d shift Tinnie said and confirmed by 3d shift Tinnie..

 

[P F Tinmore]

Load of crap, irosie. I never said any of those things.

Oh but you did. You're 1st shift Tinnie. Check out what 2d shift Tinnie said and confirmed by 3d shift Tinnie..

Links?

 

[Hossfly]

Load of crap, irosie. I never said any of those things.

Oh but you did. You're 1st shift Tinnie. Check out what 2d shift Tinnie said and confirmed by 3d shift Tinnie..

Links?

Your posts are the links, 1st shift Tinny. Look 'em up.

 

[irosie91]

Load of crap, irosie. I never said any of those things.

Oh but you did. You're 1st shift Tinnie. Check out what 2d shift Tinnie said and confirmed by 3d shift Tinnie..

Links?

"links" to what-----do you think that there are published analyses of your idiocy, tinnie?
----you referred to "those things" -----"those" is a pronoun-----to be properly used
----it should be clear in your writings just to what "those" refer ----uhm BEYOND
"things"

you need a bit of help------long ago I was a tutor for idiots who could not
produce a paper to get them thru "FRESHMAN COMP."-----now----why not
supply an example of "THOSE THINGS" so we can easily discuss-----that
which you also call "crap" and deny stating either openly or by
implication

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh but you did. You're 1st shift Tinnie. Check out what 2d shift Tinnie said and confirmed by 3d shift Tinnie..

Links?

"links" to what-----do you think that there are published analyses of your idiocy, tinnie?
----you referred to "those things" -----"those" is a pronoun-----to be properly used
----it should be clear in your writings just to what "those" refer ----uhm BEYOND
"things"

you need a bit of help------long ago I was a tutor for idiots who could not
produce a paper to get them thru "FRESHMAN COMP."-----now----why not
supply an example of "THOSE THINGS" so we can easily discuss-----that
which you also call "crap" and deny stating either openly or by
implication

"Those things" was the load of crap that irosie posted.

You need to keep up.

 

[irosie91]

Links?

"links" to what-----do you think that there are published analyses of your idiocy, tinnie?
----you referred to "those things" -----"those" is a pronoun-----to be properly used
----it should be clear in your writings just to what "those" refer ----uhm BEYOND
"things"

you need a bit of help------long ago I was a tutor for idiots who could not
produce a paper to get them thru "FRESHMAN COMP."-----now----why not
supply an example of "THOSE THINGS" so we can easily discuss-----that
which you also call "crap" and deny stating either openly or by
implication

"Those things" was the load of crap that irosie posted.



You need to keep up.

you are beyond LOAD OF STINKING CRAP --tinnie-----the products of your
"mind" would cause a cesspool overflow

 

[Lunas]

Those who don't learn from history...

 

[irosie91]

We've often heard from Islamo-terrorist apologists that "If it weren't for Israel's occupation, Arabs would have no problem with Jews". Really?! You sure?!

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews on 24 August 1929 in Hebron. During the massacre, 67 Jews were killed and Jewish homes and synagogues were ransacked; Many returned in 1931, but almost all left again during 1936–1939.
Hebron, located 30 km south of Jerusalem, is the second holiest site in Judaism, and one of the Jewish Four Holy Cities, and mentioned repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible. (Hebron was a place of significance for Muslims too, as the prophet Abraham, recognized by all "Abrahamic" faiths, was laid to rest there.) It is the location of the Cave of Machpelah, holding the Tomb of the Patriarchs of the Israelites, where Abraham, the first Patriarch of
the Jews (father and grandfather to Patriarchs Isaac and Jacob, respectively), was buried, and where David was anointed King of Israel, reigning there until his capture of Jerusalem. In 1929, the Jewish Sephardic/Mizrachi community had been living in Hebron continuously for over 800 years under various imperial powers, and the Jewish Ashkenazi community had roots there that went back at least a century.[5]

Specific accounts of the massacre : The Shaw Commission
The Shaw Commission was a British report that investigated the violent rioting in Palestine in late August 1929, and it described the Hebron attacks:

“About 9 o’clock on the morning of the 24th of August, Arabs in Hebron made a most ferocious attack on the Jewish ghetto and on isolated Jewish houses lying outside the

crowded quarters of the town. More than 60 Jews – including many women and children – were murdered and more than 50 were wounded. This savage attack, of which no condemnation could be too severe, was accompanied by wanton destruction and looting. Jewish synagogues were desecrated, a Jewish hospital, which had provided treatment for Arabs, was attacked and ransacked, and only the exceptional personal courage displayed by
Mr. Cafferata – the one British Police Officer in the town – prevented the outbreak from developing into a general massacre of the Jews in Hebron.”[27]

Did everybody see how nicely Arab Muslims "coexisted" with their Jewish counterparts in British Palestine? Wow!

From tinnie
Indeed, after Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket everything went too shit.

For those who do not know----by the time the BALFOUR DECLARATION came about-----there was already a growing jewish community in Palestine In fact Jerusalem was dominiated by jews------the arab population was largely transient and to some extent shanty town and gutter dwellers Tel Aviv was already founded----Rishon Le Tzion---hospitals ---little colleges etc etc The REAL REASON that happened is becasue of that isalmo nazi pigs REALLY REFER TO AS SHIT-------the ottomans----ever the most civilized of the shariah shit centers------moderated the shit of shariah law and <gasp> allowed jews to OWN LAND ------more to the point BUY IT FROM THEM The Ummah greeted this development something like the plantation owners of antebellum USA SOUTH greeted Lincoln's EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION thus tinnie's continuing displeasure The Balfour delcaration eased restrictions on jewish migration to Palestine------which the Umma greeted with the ENTHUSIASM that many in the USA ----notably WHITE ANGLO SAXONS -----greeted the IRISH IMMIGRATION ---fleeing the potato famine in Ireland The only difference was that the UMMAH was a lot more brutal about it ----thus tinnie describes the throat slitting of the religious and COMPLETELY UNARMED community of Hebron as justifiable He even liked the fact that children were found lying on their school books----throats slit and in pools of blood. There were people in the USA ---nasty to the IRISH-----but ----no one slit the throats of their children Prior to the Hebron event and even prior to the BALFOUR DECLARATION----slit throats were not unknown in palestine to the delight of tinnie

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is there a point in all that blabber?

 

[toomuchtime_]

As always, Roudy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about....I really start to wonder if he is a troll when I read threads like this one.

The First Aliyah began in around 1899, and by 1910 Palestinians were becoming concerned about the loss of land, and the potential to lose more.

Quite understandably, Palestinians fought back against the loss of land, much of which was simply taken and occupied.

Assuming that Palestinians would not have objected to Israelis taking land before the formation of the state 1948 is simply mindless.

You are poorly informed. The Jewish Agency purchased the land the Jews settled on. Most of this land had been farmed by tenant farmers, and while the Turkish and British law being applied at that time required no compensation to the Arab farmers who were evicted, the Jewish Agency gave each of them enough money to buy land of their own elsewhere. The British were sos impressed by the compassion the Jewish Agency showed for the Arab farmers that they passed a law requiring everyone to behave that way in such transactions.

One of the major obstacles faced by Jewish immigrants who tried to purchase land prior to 1948 was the unique system of property ownership established in much of the country. In 1932, 117,869 dunam of land was held by absentee landowners. In most cases, tenant farmers worked the land, creating a dilemma for land purchasers.34 Even after buying the land from the “real” owner, the tenant farmers would generally remain in place. In 1927, the British passed a law preventing the transfer of land without first securing new land for the tenant farmer or making a cash settlement.35Yet this had already been the policy of the Jewish Agency, which had explicitly sought to avoid controversy in its land purchases. The Shaw Commission reported:

We think that the Jewish Companies are not open to any criticism in respect of these transactions. In paying compensation, as they undoubtedly did, to many of the cultivators of land which they purchased in the Plain of Esdraelon [Jezreel Valley] those companies were making a payment which at the time of the transactions the law of Palestine did not require. Moreover, they were acting with the knowledge of the Government.36

Harvard Israel Review (HIR)

The land was not "taken" from the Arabs, it was purchased, and the Arab tenant farmers who had to move received much better treatment than the American tenant farmers who had to move during the 1930's. In effect, you are saying it is understandable to you that the Arabs would object to Jews moving into the neighborhood, and what you characterize as objections are violent attacks by the Arabs on their new Jewish neighbors, not for anything the Jews did but just because they were Jews, Arab hate crimes against Jews. How is trying to blame Jews for Arab acts of violence against them any different in principle from trying to blame the Jews for the Holocaust?

 

[irosie91]

Do not trouble Saigon with facts-----he has been taught that jews INVADED PALESTINE IN FORCE with tanks and bomber jets and CONQUORED

 

[toomuchtime_]

Evidently that much maligned security fence, despite all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, has stopped those homicide bombers and saved lives.
Now everybody sing along: "Good fences make good neighbors!"

The complaints about the fence were rarely about its effectiveness - but more about its legality and ultimate use.

I think most people would agree that the fence has been effective, but I have yet to hear anyone determine its legal status.

Then you must not have been paying attention. The High Court of Justice has issued numerous judgments on the legality of the fence carefully weighing Israel's need for security against the difficulties the fence might cause the West Bank Arabs and at times required the IDF to tear down sections of it and reroute them to better serve the interests of both parties. There is no reasonable basis for claiming the fence is illegal.

 

[irosie91]

Evidently that much maligned security fence, despite all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, has stopped those homicide bombers and saved lives.
Now everybody sing along: "Good fences make good neighbors!"

The complaints about the fence were rarely about its effectiveness - but more about its legality and ultimate use.

I think most people would agree that the fence has been effective, but I have yet to hear anyone determine its legal status.

Then you must not have been paying attention. The High Court of Justice has issued numerous judgments on the legality of the fence carefully weighing Israel's need for security against the difficulties the fence might cause the West Bank Arabs and at times required the
IDF to tear down sections of it and reroute them to better serve the interests of both parties. There is no reasonable basis for claiming the fence is illegal.

for the jerks among you guys out there-----property disputes regarding fences ABOUND
even in small town municipal courts in the USA The real issue regarding the legality of the fence arises from the fact that islamo nazi pigs root round for garbage like pigs

 

[toomuchtime_]

...defense against the Palestinians.

Why does everyone use the term defense when it is the Palestinians who were always on the defense?

From what people on kibbutz told me, they were attacked by local Palestinian farmers - but they were attacked because they were settling on land they hadn't paid for.

I think everyone on any side of this debate can understand that if you just settle on a piece of unoccupied farm land without buying it from the legal owner, you invite attack.

Bullshit. The Arabs have been making false claims about Jewish land theft since the early 1920's and both the Shaw Commission and the British courts determined that there was no basis for these claims. This is just anther attempt to blame Jews for hate crimes committed against them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

No, I don't.

I agree that the barrier has saved lives - but it would also have saved lives had it been built a long the legal border.

If the US wishes to build a wall to protect itself from Mexicans, it doesn't build it at Oaxaca.

There is no legal border. Don't confuse results you would like to see with the actual situation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

No, I don't.

I agree that the barrier has saved lives - but it would also have saved lives had it been built a long the legal border.

If the US wishes to build a wall to protect itself from Mexicans, it doesn't build it at Oaxaca.

There is no legal border. Don't confuse results you would like to see with the actual situation.

Good point. Israel can't put it on its border because it does not have any.