Israel / Palestine

[ajwps]

"The film is replete with unsupported scare tactics. At one point Emerson declares that Muslims want to establish an "Islamic empire," but offers no proof whatever."

Emerson offers no proof of Islam's desire to establish an Islamic WORLD empire? Let me be allowed to present that very proof.

The Qur'an clearly and unequivocably states that all unbelievers are to be slain from ambush unless they convert to belief in Allah.

Qur'an (Sura 9:5)

http://db.islamicity.com:81/quran/F...m&-error=error.htm&ayat_text=9:5&-max=7&-find

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war, ambush); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

If you have difficulty reading English then look below for the same threat to take over the world in the original Arabic of Mohammad.

 

[green lantern]

the palestinians have had the chance twice now to have their own state. back when the state of israel was created and sanctioned by the united nations, a separate and united nations sanctioned palestinian state was also created. this was not good enough for the palestinians who wanted not only that land, but the entire state of israel as well. a few yrs ago, israel offered up most of the golan heights, which overlooks a nice chunk of israel, as well as other real estate, in and offer to the palestinians in a land for peace deal. israel would give up this land and all the palestinians had to do was recognize israels right to exists and open normal relations with them. yassar arafat shot this in the ass. he has illusions of being a great hero to his people by vanquishing the state of israel. there will be no peace until people like arafat and those in power like him are gone.i

 

[ajwps]

Do you think Arafat is now happy with his choices in which he has turned down most of Israel more than once with a vantage point to send in his Islamic troops and drive the Jewish people into the sea from the small sliver of land that they would have had left?

There has to be reason that the Arabs have missed every tactical advantage that has been laid at their feet without having to make any concessions of peace with Israel. This is what is called a conundrum.

In the Bible, there is a story of the Pharaoh of Egypt who was given chances to let the Hebrew slaves go from Egypt. Moses had warned him that he would suffer plagues if he didn't.

Every time the Pharaoh was about to do what Moses asked, the story goes that the Creator 'put a hook' in his mouth and turned him around forcing him to keep the Hebrews enslaved.

It seems we have history sort of repeating itself here. When our friendly little murdering terrorist Arafat is offered a way to kill all the Jews, for some unknown reason Arafat has a hook 'put in his mouth' and he reverts back to his murdering and oppressing the Jewish people.

The moral of this little thought exercise is that all of this seeming stalemated killing and retaliating against a selected target will never end.

I would not be so certain of anything. History when looked back in retrospective will be very telling of the inevitable end of the Arab people and countries of the world.

Wait for further episodes.

http://muslims.homestead.com/IsraelBorders2004.html

 

[Batamo]

The brightest day the darkest night
no evil shall escape my sight
and those who worship evil's might
beware my power, Green Langern's light.

 

[Bry]

That the Arabs, since 1948, have had any "legal" opportunity of establishing their own Palestinian State to exist side by side by the Israel is a historical misrepresentation which is believed only within the borders of the US, and within Israel itself. The rewriting of history has already taken place, and the dividends can be seen in posts like the above.

Was the partition plan fair to both Arabs and Jews?

" Arab rejection was… based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half Jewish] with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body-a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least…The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the rights of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own Charter."

Sami Hadawi, " Bitter Harvest"

The Oslo Accords (which offered no specific mention of establishing a Palestinian state) and the subsequent offers that were proposed had even less to offer the Palestenians...
the following site gives a pretty detailed examination of what was actually on the table, (which not surprisingly made no appearance in US media.)

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf

At this point, the only places in the world where the enormous injustice perpetrated against the Palestenians over the last 50+ years are the US, where Zionist PACS exercise an inordinate influence, and Israel itself.

 

[ajwps]

Orginally posted by Bry

"That the Arabs, since 1948, have had any "legal" opportunity of establishing their own Palestinian State to exist side by side by the Israel is a historical misrepresentation which is believed only within the borders of the US, and within Israel itself. The rewriting of history has already taken place, and the dividends can be seen in posts like the above."

The orginal UN Partition of Israel into an Israel and separate State of Palestine was turned down by the Arabs. The day after Israel declared itself a state in the small partition area outline by the UN Charter, Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors.

You say that Arafat was never offered a Palestinian state. You might want to learn to read. See following:

The Olso Accords also create numerous protocols to implement these and other principles of Palestinian self-government.

In July 2000, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat met at Camp David for the purpose of working out final arrangements for a Palestinian state. Barak made concessions far exceeding the framework of the Oslo Accords, including Palestinian control over a large portion of Jerusalem. But Arafat walked away, without making any counterproposals.

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin062502.asp

Why must you insist on lying through your teeth?

quote from a prevaricator:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the partition plan fair to both Arabs and Jews?

" Arab rejection was… based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half Jewish] with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body-a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least. The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the rights of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own Charter."

Sami Hadawi, " Bitter Harvest"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only problem with the above Arab propagandist is that any self respecting people would jump on the chance to have a self governing country of their own. But no these self respecting Arabs weren't interested in any land of their own, the Arabs were interested in driving the Jews into the Med sea. The Arabs and Arafat don't even try to hide this fact. They count on anti-semitism and hatred to back their evil scheme. Bry being no exception.

"The Oslo Accords (which offered no specific mention of establishing a Palestinian state) and the subsequent offers that were proposed had even less to offer the Palestenians...
the following site gives a pretty detailed examination of what was actually on the table, (which not surprisingly made no appearance in US media.) http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf At this point, the only places in the world where the enormous injustice perpetrated against the Palestenians over the last 50+ years are the US, where Zionist PACS exercise an inordinate influence, and Israel itself."

Unfortunately there were no palestinians 50 years ago. The Arabs started using this name in 1967 in an attempt to make a front to destroy the innocents of Israel.

The only Ally Israel ever had was their Creator and His covenant to protect them from these land grabber murderers.

Bry why is that you put yourself in a position as a lackey of the Islamic religion. The same one that wants to destroy you if you truly are an infidel as described in the Qur'an.

 

[Bry]

up to your old polemics ajwps? Still trying to convince the world that the arabs want to kill them? Since you stepped out of your Mustafa clownsuit, you've made many very interesting points, even in the Iraq war forum where I still disagree, but especially with your little Christian bashing that you started in the Muslim section. You make some very interesting points there, but you also lead one to the conclusion that you have made yourself a very adept defender of Zionism. You're a one trick pony, and your consistent resort to pure propaganda and mythologizing of the "evil" muslims (not to mention your demonizing of anyone who puts forth an argument conflicting with your own) is the clearest evidence.

What the League of Nations mandated, under significant pressure from the US, who was under significant pressure from the already powerful Zionist constituency, was a gross violation of human rights. The plan was to encourage jewish emigration to a land already inhabited by a thorough majority of Arabs and maintain international oversight until such time as the Jews arrived at a majority and could thus institute self-rule by virtue of their majority population. Such a majority population was never achieved.

That "Israel", the establishment of which was a violation of the UNs own charter, was "attacked" by it's Arab neighbors is a matter of historical question, as the "state of Israel" was a fiction from the beginning. Of course, even the Jews were not confused as to the illusiary status of their long dreamed of state, as they had prepared an army: the only way Israel could be established FROM THE BEGINNING was by forcibly removing the majority Arab inhabitants from their homes, which of course is exactly what they did.

" The Arab league hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill-equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts…[Jordan’s King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoids fighting with Jewish settlements…Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off ‘ the overwhelming hordes’ of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified." "Our Roots are Still Alive" by the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

"Menachem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive…Arabs began to flee in terror…Hagana was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while other Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter’ …The Israeli’s now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948.But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states’ intervention." Sami Hadawi,"Bitter Harvest."

Oslo was nothing more than a "declaration of purpose", which promised much, but delivered little (perhaps in part do to the sort-lived government of Rabin.) Barak's subsequent offers were a joke and an insult, offering apartheid. I supplied a site with the actual map of what was being proposed by Barak, and it clearly shows the impossibility of an Arab state that is infact broken into several isolated and easily controlable ghettos without communication and crisscrossed by Israeli checkpoints, highways, and overppasses. The fact is, Israel stepped up its colonization of Palestenian territory in the years following Oslo, as always hoping for a defacto victory rather than negotiations based on some concept of justice.

The only problem with the above Arab propagandist is that any self respecting people would jump on the chance to have a self governing country of their own. But no these self respecting Arabs weren't interested in any land of their own, the Arabs were interested in driving the Jews into the Med sea. The Arabs and Arafat don't even try to hide this fact. They count on anti-semitism and hatred to back their evil scheme. Bry being no exception.

Any self-respecting people would jump at the chance to have self government under any assinine conditions? I think not. The Arabs agreeing to the partition in '48 would have been ridiculous. They constituted a majority of the population in both sides of the partition, and should have been given self-rule of the entire region. Anything else was nothing more than the insulting machinations of the Zionist's attempts to create a nation where there was no possible argument in its favor, beyond half-baked references to the ancient covenant. It would be comparable to native Americans saying "this land is historically ours, and making the inticing offer of splitting the US in half, one part to be governed by the native Americans, even though their population in that section only would ammount to a fraction. The Arabs were only interested in driving the jews into the sea? Give me a break. They correctly recognized the zionist threat for what it was. Here are some quotes from your founding fathers to illustrate my point.

" While the Yishuv`s leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israeli society- including…Ben Gurion- were opposed to or extremely unhappy with the partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state’s borders beyond the UN-earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians. "Israeli Historian, Benny Morris, in "Tikun", March/April 1998.

‘ In internal discussion in 1938,[David Ben-Gurion] stated that’ after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine… The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine’… In 1948, Menahem Begin declared that: ‘The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And forever.’ " Noam Chomsky, " The Fateful Triangle"

"Even if nobody lost their land, the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights…Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise."
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, " Original Sins"

"The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921,Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms." Sami Hadawi,"Bitter Harvest."


As for your more polemical statements such as that I should learn to read, or that I am somehow "lying through my teeth", they are as absurd as your contention that Israel is oppressed by the Palestinians, and not vice versa. But then, it's typical of your style, as well as the overbearing style of the Zionist PACs who are always quick to cry "anti-semitism" whenever anyone makes the slightest objection to Israeli and pro-Israeli US policy. Obviously, reasonable discussion of the issues and history is not to be expected from the Zionists like yourself. Nor am I interested in your religious justifications (it turns out, the only arguments in your favor, as pathetic as that is), nor your scare-tactic hyperbolic interpretations of the Islamic text.


"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs…As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."

Mahatma Gandhi quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr

"Albert Einstein- ‘ I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain’…

I guess Gandhi and Einstein didn't know how to read either. lol

 

[ajwps]

Original post by Bry
up to your old polemics ajwps? Still trying to convince the world that the arabs want to kill them?
Old polemics you say? Like truth and lies admixed, truth always rises to the top. I am not trying to convince any of those on this site of facts already well known and admitted by the Muslims.
Since you stepped out of your Mustafa clownsuit, you've made many very interesting points, even in the Iraq war forum where I still disagree, but especially with your little Christian bashing that you started in the Muslim section.
You say I indulge in Christian bashing while you abdicate your basic belief tenets in favor of using the older Jewish belief in heavenly retribution and avoiding the verses of the New Testament. It is hardly a wonder that you choose to side with the Iraqi dictator and his thugs who murdered and tortured his people. Typical of the tolerance and name calling when it comes to the lives and freedom of fellow human beings. Very nice indeed….
You make some very interesting points there, but you also lead one to the conclusion that you have made yourself a very adept defender of Zionism. You're a one trick pony, and your consistent resort to pure propaganda and mythologizing of the "evil" Muslims (not to mention your demonizing of anyone who puts forth an argument conflicting with your own) is the clearest evidence.
You are a perfect example of intolerance while you equate Zionism with Judaism. I do not consider myself a ‘trick pony’ when I use logic and you respond with illogical and untrue statements.

What the League of Nations mandated, under significant pressure from the US, who was under significant pressure from the already powerful Zionist constituency, was a gross violation of human rights. The plan was to encourage jewish emigration to a land already inhabited by a thorough majority of Arabs and maintain international oversight until such time as the Jews arrived at a majority and could thus institute self-rule by virtue of their majority population. Such a majority population was never achieved.
For your information, the League of Nations was not mandated by the United States, in fact, the Congress apposed its creation as proposed by Woodrow Wilson. Your statement clearly underlines your bias and confabulation of the always potent blame game against of the Jewish people (you call Zionist constituency) as the always evil people who killed your god. The Zionist (Jews) are Deity killers ergo they are cursed throughout their generations. The fact that they survive the deadly persecution of so many peoples and civilizations raises your ire even more.
Your imagination runs wild with your fictional scenario of a Jewish plot to take over the Arab land of Israel (there was no Palestine in history) and reference some sort of majority population and land grab by those demon Jews under a defunct Christian president’s League of Nations. You should be a propagandist for the world of Islam. I think you may have missed your calling.


That "Israel", the establishment of which was a violation of the UNs own charter, was "attacked" by it's Arab neighbors is a matter of historical question, as the "state of Israel" was a fiction from the beginning. Of course, even the Jews were not confused as to the illusiary status of their long dreamed of state, as they had prepared an army: the only way Israel could be established FROM THE BEGINNING was by forcibly removing the majority Arab inhabitants from their homes, which of course is exactly what they did.

If your fiction wasn’t so ridiculous I would laugh but when you revise history in favor murderers, you show your true Christian tolerance of hate and the using of innocents to maintain your ancient Roman Mithraism Christian origins for your personal salvation. You claim that Israel was illusionary and a long dreamed of state created an army to remove the Arabs from their land. A perfect example of revisionist history altered and manufactured by lies and deceit as instructed by St. Paul of New Testament fame.
“"Being crafty, I caught you with guile" ...
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my LIE unto his glory; why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul.

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!”
Pope Leo X.
The origins of Christianity from the ancient Roman religion of Mithraism.
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index...s/Religion/Mithraism/David_Fingrut**.html#int
" The Arab league hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill-equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts…[Jordan’s King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoids fighting with Jewish settlements…Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off ‘ the overwhelming hordes’ of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified." "Our Roots are Still Alive" by the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

The above fable is not even worth refuting for the actual events were well recorded by many non-Jewish witnesses and actual film footage made of the actual events of a few thousand Jews that fought off by some of the best trained and equipped armies of that day. Evidence refutes your fabrications.


"Menachem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive…Arabs began to flee in terror…Hagana was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while other Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter’ …The Israeli’s now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948.But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states’ intervention." Sami Hadawi,"Bitter Harvest."

Your use of an Islamic propagandist’s twisting and turning of facts is similar to the Holocaust deniers who will also suffer for their sins against their Creator. There will be no saving grace of Christ to save you from your intolerance, hatred and envy of the Jewish people and the Creator of the universe.
Oslo was nothing more than a "declaration of purpose", which promised much, but delivered little (perhaps in part do to the sort-lived government of Rabin.) Barak's subsequent offers were a joke and an insult, offering apartheid. I supplied a site with the actual map of what was being proposed by Barak, and it clearly shows the impossibility of an Arab state that is infact broken into several isolated and easily controlable ghettos without communication and crisscrossed by Israeli checkpoints, highways, and overppasses. The fact is, Israel stepped up its colonization of Palestenian territory in the years following Oslo, as always hoping for a defacto victory rather than negotiations based on some concept of justice.
Again you find it necessary to use the deceit of St. Paul to change the OSLO war against the Jewish people as some kind of ‘declaration of purpose’ which was rejected as a step toward a state for the Arabs in the land given to the Jewish people by G-d and for which the Jewish people paid for many times over with the blood of their young. I doubt that anyone but Muslims believe one word of your plagiarized statement of lies.

Any self-respecting people would jump at the chance to have self government under any assinine conditions? I think not. The Arabs agreeing to the partition in '48 would have been ridiculous. They constituted a majority of the population in both sides of the partition, and should have been given self-rule of the entire region. Anything else was nothing more than the insulting machinations of the Zionist's attempts to create a nation where there was no possible argument in its favor, beyond half-baked references to the ancient covenant. It would be comparable to native Americans saying "this land is historically ours, and making the inticing offer of splitting the US in half, one part to be governed by the native Americans, even though their population in that section only would ammount to a fraction. The Arabs were only interested in driving the jews into the sea? Give me a break. They correctly recognized the zionist threat for what it was. Here are some quotes from your founding fathers to illustrate my point.

Any self-respecting people would know that the conditions of OSLO were signed and agreed to by the Arab Arafat. But in typical style, ignored his signature and word and reverted to the Intifada which put his people into poverty, continued ignorance, pain, suffering and death. But facts appears to be way above your head.

" While the Yishuv`s leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israeli society- including…Ben Gurion- were opposed to or extremely unhappy with the partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state’s borders beyond the UN-earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians. "Israeli Historian, Benny Morris, in "Tikun", March/April 1998.

Tikkun is much like Norway’s WW2 ‘Quisling’ traitor to his people and nation. Self hating and deprecating evil is found in all nations of the world.

‘ In internal discussion in 1938,[David Ben-Gurion] stated that’ after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine… The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine’… In 1948, Menahem Begin declared that: ‘The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And forever.’ " Noam Chomsky, " The Fateful Triangle"

Same as above Tikkun Quisling Jewish Benedict Arnold.

"Even if nobody lost their land, the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights…Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise."
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, " Original Sins"

Same as above Tikkun Quisling Jewish Benedict Arnold.

"The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921,Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms." Sami Hadawi,"Bitter Harvest."

Famous Arab propagandist quoted by Bry

As for your more polemical statements such as that I should learn to read, or that I am somehow "lying through my teeth", they are as absurd as your contention that Israel is oppressed by the Palestinians, and not vice versa. But then, it's typical of your style, as well as the overbearing style of the Zionist PACs who are always quick to cry "anti-semitism" whenever anyone makes the slightest objection to Israeli and pro-Israeli US policy. Obviously, reasonable discussion of the issues and history is not to be expected from the Zionists like yourself. Nor am I interested in your religious justifications (it turns out, the only arguments in your favor, as pathetic as that is), nor your scare-tactic hyperbolic interpretations of the Islamic text.

Your own absurd and fabricated statements prove you to be true to your NT writer, the infamous Tarsian Saul.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs…As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."

Israel belongs to the current occupants of the land. The Arabs have never had a government or constitution nor do they desire the land now owned outright by the world recognized democracy of Israel. No amount of historical revisionism changes the fact that Israel is a Jewish state in a sea of Arab lands.

Mahatma Gandhi quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr

"Albert Einstein- ‘ I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain’…

I guess Gandhi and Einstein didn't know how to read either. Lol

The Mahatma and Albert Einstein were always right says Bry. Ignorance can be found even among the pacificists of the world. The hopes of these two men proved to be in ERROR…. History always exposes stupidity and intolerance up to the light of TRUTH.

 

[Bry]

Your responses are, without exception, laughable. Your idea of Truth is limited to what you find in your religious texts, and you have nothing more to add.

I have already said that I'm not interested in your religious justifications. If your concept of truth is so limited, we have nothing more to discuss. I do not prescribe to any religious world views, and flatly deny any conception of God as being somehow relevant to my life. If you want to continue your hermetic discussions of religion, I suggest you stick with gopjeff.

You deny my offered evidence as coming either from anti-semitic muslems or self-lothing jews, and say I equate Zionism with Judiaism when in fact I go to lengths to separate the two. You, however, are a Zionist, who believes in the rightful Jewish possession of the homeland, and the rebirth of your fictional kingdoms of old glory. I won't bore you with stories about how little all of my Jewish friends and girlfriends would care to be put in the same group as you, regardless of your shared religion, but it is the case. And all of the sources I sited came from Jewish research groups, so obviously there is some distinction to be made; obviously you do not speak for all Jews.

For your information, the League of Nations was not mandated by the United States, in fact, the Congress apposed its creation as proposed by Woodrow Wilson. Your statement clearly underlines your bias and confabulation of the always potent blame game against of the Jewish people (you call Zionist constituency) as the always evil people who killed your god. The Zionist (Jews) are Deity killers ergo they are cursed throughout their generations. The fact that they survive the deadly persecution of so many peoples and civilizations raises your ire even more.

The following site makes clear that the League of Nations mandate for the creation of the Jewish State was put forward by the United States.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/americandraft.html

and here is Truman's position, as pronounced just before the "creation" of the Israel.

‘ I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." President Harry Truman, quoted in "Anti-Zionism"
ed. By Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo and Mezvinsky.

Obviously, he was concerned about his Zionist constituents. Your comments about what you suppose are my beliefs and motivations are totally non-sequitur.

If your fiction wasn’t so ridiculous I would laugh but when you revise history in favor murderers, you show your true Christian tolerance of hate and the using of innocents to maintain your ancient Roman Mithraism Christian origins for your personal salvation. You claim that Israel was illusionary and a long dreamed of state created an army to remove the Arabs from their land. A perfect example of revisionist history altered and manufactured by lies and deceit as instructed by St. Paul of New Testament fame.
“"Being crafty, I caught you with guile" ...
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my LIE unto his glory; why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul.

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!”
Pope Leo X.
The origins of Christianity from the ancient Roman religion of Mithraism.
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index...grut**.html#int

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? You're attacking the bible, to which I say "more power to 'ya", but you offer nothing to refute my argument. The shrillness of your voice comes through in your typing.

The above fable is not even worth refuting for the actual events were well recorded by many non-Jewish witnesses and actual film footage made of the actual events of a few thousand Jews that fought off by some of the best trained and equipped armies of that day. Evidence refutes your fabrications.

um, would you like to offer some? I mean, I'd love to take your word for it, but....

Your use of an Islamic propagandist’s twisting and turning of facts is similar to the Holocaust deniers who will also suffer for their sins against their Creator. There will be no saving grace of Christ to save you from your intolerance, hatred and envy of the Jewish people and the Creator of the universe.

Ya, again, would you care to support ANY of your wild accusations?

Again you find it necessary to use the deceit of St. Paul to change the OSLO war against the Jewish people as some kind of ‘declaration of purpose’ which was rejected as a step toward a state for the Arabs in the land given to the Jewish people by G-d and for which the Jewish people paid for many times over with the blood of their young. I doubt that anyone but Muslims believe one word of your plagiarized statement of lies.

Sure, okay, deceipt. So SHOW ME. BTW the Oslo Accord is called the Oslo Declaration of Purpose, or Oslo DOP. Look it up, my shrill little shrieker. "land given to the Jewish people by G-d"?!? What a waste of time you are. You doubt that anyone other than Muslims believe one word of my plagiarized statement of lies? LOL. Funny coming from the master plagiarizer himself. Would you care to point exactly to where I used material not my own without citing a reference?

Any self-respecting people would know that the conditions of OSLO were signed and agreed to by the Arab Arafat. But in typical style, ignored his signature and word and reverted to the Intifada which put his people into poverty, continued ignorance, pain, suffering and death. But facts appears to be way above your head.

The intifada was reinstated nine years after Oslo, after it was clear the Israelis had no intention of honoring their commitments and continued with their colonization of Palestenian territory. Barak's offers were an insult. Once Perez left the scene, Oslo no longer held water. I don't defend the decisions of Arafat, but given the circumstances, the worst that can be said is that he was between a rock and a hardplace, and chose to fight an impossible fight, rather than allowing his people to be subjected to apartheid. You, on the other hand, speak of facts, but offer none.

The rest of your comments are either dismissing my evidence as radical spin (while you offer none in rebuttal) or consist of more of your religious ramblings. Oh, and dismissing Ghandi and Einstein as fallible while going to great lengths to demonstrate your own fallibility. Way to go, champ. I rest my case, and feel no need to continue engaging your Zionist screeching.

And nice picture, twit.

 

[jimnyc]

I have already said that I'm not interested in your religious justifications.

Sorry, can't have it both ways. As Catholicism was constantly brought up in the Muslim section, I was asked to allow it as it allowed everyone to speak their point of views. To only dismiss religious relevancy when you don't need it to support your argument seems a bit unfair.

And correct me if I'm wrong, hasn't all the "sympathizing" and "understanding" of the terrorists actions and the people of Iraq been as a result of understanding the strong religious following they have and how their society is different as a result?

 

[Bry]

No, jim it's not two ways, and I never made any plea for understanding Islamic culture. I have always criticized American policy for ineptness, wrongheadedness, and hypocrisy, but it never had anything to do with what a wonderful religion Islam may or may not be. Anyway, I don't need a moderator to decide for me what I will consider evidence in a political discussion and what not. If he wants to quote the Torah, and the bible, have at it, but I won't participate, thanks.

You stand corrected.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
No, jim it's not two ways, and I never made any plea for understanding Islamic culture. I have always criticized American policy for ineptness, wrongheadedness, and hypocrisy, but it never had anything to do with what a wonderful religion Islam may or may not be. Anyway, I don't need a moderator to decide for me what I will consider evidence in a political discussion and what not. If he wants to quote the Torah, and the bible, have at it, but I won't participate, thanks.

You stand corrected.

Then I guess you lose the debate. One view will not be considered. The debate itself is based on opposing views, not just Bry's.

His religious references are perfectly acceptable. You choose not to debate as a result. By default, you lose.

Don't participate, you aren't hurting a single soul.

 

[janeeng]

just for Bry!!!!! Bry

 

[ajwps]

"Your responses are, without exception, laughable. Your idea of Truth is limited to what you find in your religious texts, and you have nothing more to add."

DITTO

"I have already said that I'm not interested in your religious justifications. If your concept of truth is so limited, we have nothing more to discuss. I do not prescribe to any religious world views, and flatly deny any conception of God as being somehow relevant to my life. If you want to continue your hermetic discussions of religion, I suggest you stick with gopjeff."

It sometimes becomes difficult telling the difference between the gop_jeff and dijetlo characters. You two posters could be two of the three stooges attached as at the top of your skulls.

"You deny my offered evidence as coming either from anti-semitic muslems or self-lothing jews, and say I equate Zionism with Judiaism when in fact I go to lengths to separate the two. You, however, are a Zionist, who believes in the rightful Jewish possession of the homeland, and the rebirth of your fictional kingdoms of old glory. I won't bore you with stories about how little all of my Jewish friends and girlfriends would care to be put in the same group as you, regardless of your shared religion, but it is the case. And all of the sources I sited came from Jewish research groups, so obviously there is some distinction to be made; obviously you do not speak for all Jews.

Your quotes could come from Mars but that wouldn't change the reality. Obviously I do not speak for all Jews and you do not speak for the majority of the Jewish people. You might want to send your little Jewish friends and girlfriends the following video site (with sound).

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/fence.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For your information, the League of Nations was not mandated by the United States, in fact, the Congress apposed its creation as proposed by Woodrow Wilson. Your statement clearly underlines your bias and confabulation of the always potent blame game against of the Jewish people (you call Zionist constituency) as the always evil people who killed your god. The Zionist (Jews) are Deity killers ergo they are cursed throughout their generations. The fact that they survive the deadly persecution of so many peoples and civilizations raises your ire even more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The following site makes clear that the League of Nations mandate for the creation of the Jewish State was put forward by the United States.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/americandraft.html"

and here is the answer to the US defeat of the League of Nations:

However, the United States did not accept its new role as a world power, never signed this joint treaty, nor did it become a member of the League of Nations due to the ineffectual leadership of its President.
--------------------------
http://members.aol.com/adriana116/dbq2.html
and here is Truman's position, as pronounced just before the "creation" of the Israel.

‘ I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." President Harry Truman, quoted in "Anti-Zionism"
ed. By Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo and Mezvinsky.
Obviously, he was concerned about his Zionist constituents. Your comments about what you suppose are my beliefs and motivations are totally non-sequitur."

Truman initially hesitated to vote for the partition of British palestine in 1947. Truman stated that he had received over 35,000 letters in favor of Israel while also stating that he would set fire to these letters as he initally obstained voting for partiion. Only later did Truman vote for the partition at the behest of his former Jewish habadasher partner. (See copy of Truman letter below)

"Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? You're attacking the bible, to which I say "more power to 'ya", but you offer nothing to refute my argument. The shrillness of your voice comes through in your typing."

Your name calling (twit) demonstrates your apparent angst at being unable to refute the obvious realities I put forward. You really should relax, take a deep breath and try to think coherently.

"um, would you like to offer some? I mean, I'd love to take your word for it, but...."

http://www.cet.edu/earthinfo/meast/israel/IPtopic4.html

The 1948 War (May 1948 - July 1949)
With the declaration of the creation of Israel, several Arab states declared war. Despite being attacked by five Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon) with a combined much larger population than Israel, the Israelis were able to gain the offensive and defeat the Arab armies.

See map of Arab armies attack 1948 Israel

http://map1948.homestead.com/1948ARABATTACK.html

"Ya, again, would you care to support ANY of your wild accusations?"

Sure, check out following site...

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_course.php

"Sure, okay, deceipt. So SHOW ME. BTW the Oslo Accord is called the Oslo Declaration of Purpose, or Oslo DOP. Look it up, my shrill little shrieker. "land given to the Jewish people by G-d"?!? What a waste of time you are. You doubt that anyone other than Muslims believe one word of my plagiarized statement of lies? LOL. Funny coming from the master plagiarizer himself. Would you care to point exactly to where I used material not my own without citing a reference?"

The fact remains that Israel (even with all accords and agreements were voided by the Arabs. The land of Israel remains the possession of the Jewish people today. Any dispute about this fact will have to resolved by another war taking the land from the Israeli people. GET IT... All your hollering and yelping will not change reality.


"The intifada was reinstated nine years after Oslo, after it was clear the Israelis had no intention of honoring their commitments and continued with their colonization of Palestenian territory. Barak's offers were an insult. Once Perez left the scene, Oslo no longer held water. I don't defend the decisions of Arafat, but given the circumstances, the worst that can be said is that he was between a rock and a hardplace, and chose to fight an impossible fight, rather than allowing his people to be subjected to apartheid. You, on the other hand, speak of facts, but offer none."

Oslo ended in catastrophe. Every condition imposed on the Palestinians--Arafat's written pledge to renounce terrorism, to end incitement, to limit the size of his ``police,'' to truly recognize Israel's right to exist--was systematically violated. The Labor governments in Jerusalem and the Clinton administration in Washington ignored the violations, equally systematically, so as not to disturb the ``peace process to this very day

The rest of your comments are either dismissing my evidence as radical spin (while you offer none in rebuttal) or consist of more of your religious ramblings. Oh, and dismissing Ghandi and Einstein as fallible while going to great lengths to demonstrate your own fallibility. Way to go, champ. I rest my case, and feel no need to continue engaging your Zionist screeching.

So by dismissing reality with your starry-eyed revision of history and fact gives evidence that you have lost the argument. The defense of the Muslim world is very revealing in a world of your own fantasy



And nice picture, twit.

 

[jimnyc]

It sometimes becomes difficult telling the difference between the gop_jeff and dijetlo characters. You two posters could be two of the three stooges attached as at the top of your skulls.

Bry and ajwps, please refrain from the namecalling before it gets out of hand.

ajwps - I don't think Jeff deserved that comment. He has politely debated with you and has not once been aggressive. He has offered nothing but his own views, and has done so in a very civil manner.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bry
"I have already said that I'm not interested in your religious justifications. If your concept of truth is so limited, we have nothing more to discuss. I do not prescribe to any religious world views, and flatly deny any conception of God as being somehow relevant to my life. If you want to continue your hermetic discussions of religion, I suggest you stick with gopjeff."

Originally posted by ajwps
It sometimes becomes difficult telling the difference between the gop_jeff and dijetlo characters. You two posters could be two of the three stooges attached as at the top of your skulls.

How the hell did I get dragged into this?!?

First, I have only posted twice in this thread, two and a half pages ago, once in response to praying for peace, and once referring to the invasion of Israel in 1948 (to which Bry rebutted, and I have not responded to, as the thread became quite overwhelming).

Secondly, I am not the same person as dijetlo. He's a great guy and all, but we have very differing political views.

Thirdly, ajwps, your religious views could just as easily be interpreted by others as stoogelike as mine could. I have yet to launch a personal attack against your for your views, (or anyone else, for that matter) and am surprised that you would do the discourtesy to me as to attack me for mine.

I have also taken great pains to separate my religious and political views, explain the reasonings behind my political views (which have little, if anything, to do with my religious beliefs), and keep my posts on topic, be it religious, political, or otherwise.

Please keep me out of your arguments.

 

[Bry]

Sorry, jeff, I didn't mean any harm. I was only suggesting that if ajwps wants to discuss religion, he would well to do it with you, since you are quite interested in such subjects. Once again, I certainly had no intention of "dragging you in", and I'm sorry ajwps saw fit to take the opportunity to make insults.

Sincerely, Bry

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Then I guess you lose the debate. One view will not be considered. The debate itself is based on opposing views, not just Bry's.

His religious references are perfectly acceptable. You choose not to debate as a result. By default, you lose.

Don't participate, you aren't hurting a single soul.

I wasn't aware that there were winners and loosers. jejeje. Well, I guess I'll just combat fire with fire.

Everything that happens on earth is pre-destined, that is to say that all events from creation were encompassed by the mind of God (as presented by Nostra Damus, of course, 'cause eveyone knows that everything he said was true...) Owing to this pre-destination, the idea of human responsibility collapses. The Jews are not responsible for their actions any more than the Arabs. God is responsible for all of their actions. Also as a result, all of our pathetic analysis and opinions are for not: We can call one side good, or another side bad, but in the end neither concept has any value because it's all nothing more nor less than the inevitable ticking of God's clock. "Terrorists" are no more terrorists than my dog, and Israeli walls are no more oppressive than my backyard fence. They are all nothing but God's design. of course we will keep having and writing our various opinions, because that is God's will, but none of it has any sense beyond the primal concept: God.

Oh, nevermind. That stuff has no more place in a political discussion than Coca-Cola jingles, and you know it. In no way have I made a religios argument ever in the Political section, or anywhere else. If you chose to confabulate countering argument about how bad Arabs are with arguments about how bad Christians are, with incorporating religious argument in a political discussion, you go boy. Like I said, I won't participate, and I don't need you to remind me that not participating is always an option. If you really want me to go, jim, as your personal messages would indicate, why don't you just ban me? I mean, you certainly wouldn't hurt a single soul by doing so...

I'm still curious about this whole win / lose concept, though. Does that mean that the last person to post in a thread is the "winner"? Everytime you declined to reply to a post, no matter how uninteresting the topic might be to you, were you the "looser"? Is there a point system involved? And who is the judge? You? (juajuajua)

PS thanks for the cute personal message, Janeeng! Thanks for thinking of me

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
If you really want me to go, jim, as your personal messages would indicate, why don't you just ban me? I mean, you certainly wouldn't hurt a single soul by doing so...

I'm still curious about this whole win / lose concept, though. Does that mean that the last person to post in a thread is the "winner"? Everytime you declined to reply to a post, no matter how uninteresting the topic might be to you, were you the "looser"? Is there a point system involved? And who is the judge? You? (juajuajua)

My personal message indicated I could care less if you stayed or went. I simply asked you to refrain from the namecalling. Here is exactly what you received in a PM:

You can disagree with me all you like. You refer to our soldiers in a nazi manner or as storm troopers, I return the respect in kind.

If you go out of your way again to bash me, you're history.

My board, my rules. All I asked for was some respect for the soldiers in refraining from the namecalling. I lost my cool and responded with words that shouldn't have either - but this is what happens when people simply can't follow the rules.

Again, my board and my rules. If you don't like it you are free to fucking leave and I assure you that you won't be missed in the slightest bit.

Now, shall we share with everyone what was in your reply? That I could "shove my rules up my ass"?

I'd like to think that alone would be a bannable offense on every other board out there. Yet, you remain here posting. I don't think it was so out of line for me to ask you to quit with the namecalling.

Before I can comment on the rest, please explain to me what a "looser" is. Is that the person who wears his pants with the least amount of restraint?

 

[janeeng]

PS thanks for the cute personal message, Janeeng! Thanks for thinking of me

Your Welcome Bry!!!!!