Obama does not state the 1967 border should be returned...

[Jack Fate]

Please stop using Wikipedia as a source.

Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The guys who set up the state of Israel were not terrorists.

They did have some guys running around who were, and they let them come in as legal, but the Stern and Irgun factions put down their guns and fought it out on the ballot after that.

And the Irgun and Stern folks weren't attacking the Arabs. They were attacking the british. And they were attacking military installations. They managed to blow up the headquarters of the British occupation.

The arabs attacked the Jews, and the British let them. So the Brits had to go.

Everyone knows about Dier Yassin now. Mostly because it was such a freaky event. People forget what the arabs did in Hebron and a dozen other places. It became common and boring.

One could argue that the Israelis should have banned Sharon and Begin from running for office after what they did. It would be a tough argument to make in comparison to what was routine from the arab side at the time.

I love CON$ervative rationalizations! The terrorists weren't terrorists because they were terrorizing the British rather than Arabs,

They were attacking a military force. Not school buses and birthday parties.
And why the British were there in the first place is an interesting question in itself. The brits and the French moved in as the new colonial power after the Ottomans were expelled. There was no legitimate reason for them to be there.

The Irgun and Stern were terrorists in the same way Francis Marion might be considered a terrorist. But there is quite a huge difference between blowing up a military installation of an occupying power and blowing up a wedding reception. The corpses don't recognize that of course. They are equally dead.

Also the Stern Gang and the Irgun were not part of the Yishuv organization that brought about independence. They seem to have actually slowed things down.

In any war, which is itself an atrocity, there are greater or worse atrocities all the time. During the US revolution, the actions of Light Horse Harry Lee are often passed over in American history books, as they don't really fit the narrative.

Did Dier Yassin happen? Sure. Were Ben Gurion and co Responsible? They didn't order that. But if they Arabs hadn't had a record of atrocity going back 20 years, and a habit of fighting under women's skirts what happened there would have been a lot less likely. Can anyone wipe that stain away? No. It happened. Do the arabs bear some responsibility for it..? Very much so. They set up the conditions of that battle, so having established the rules of engagement, they are equally responsible.

Ben Gurion and Co were not Terrorists. No more so than Jefferson and Madison were terrorists. But both sets were a bit to cozy with some of those who were. But that is the way revolutions work.

 

[Sallow]

you're ranting and now engaged in changing or attempting to mitigate your comment, either disown or ......



links please.

This is the last time.

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1990 Temple Mount riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of Israeli assassinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a credible scholarly site according to the founder of Wikipedia and many college professors.

This wasn't directed as you..and these events are matters of history. I sourced what was available and not on a biased arab site.

 

[Sallow]

The guys who set up the state of Israel were not terrorists.

They did have some guys running around who were, and they let them come in as legal, but the Stern and Irgun factions put down their guns and fought it out on the ballot after that.

And the Irgun and Stern folks weren't attacking the Arabs. They were attacking the british. And they were attacking military installations. They managed to blow up the headquarters of the British occupation.

The arabs attacked the Jews, and the British let them. So the Brits had to go.

Everyone knows about Dier Yassin now. Mostly because it was such a freaky event. People forget what the arabs did in Hebron and a dozen other places. It became common and boring.

One could argue that the Israelis should have banned Sharon and Begin from running for office after what they did. It would be a tough argument to make in comparison to what was routine from the arab side at the time.

I love CON$ervative rationalizations! The terrorists weren't terrorists because they were terrorizing the British rather than Arabs,

They were attacking a military force. Not school buses and birthday parties.
And why the British were there in the first place is an interesting question in itself. The brits and the French moved in as the new colonial power after the Ottomans were expelled. There was no legitimate reason for them to be there.

The Irgun and Stern were terrorists in the same way Francis Marion might be considered a terrorist. But there is quite a huge difference between blowing up a military installation of an occupying power and blowing up a wedding reception. The corpses don't recognize that of course. They are equally dead.

Also the Stern Gang and the Irgun were not part of the Yishuv organization that brought about independence. They seem to have actually slowed things down.

In any war, which is itself an atrocity, there are greater or worse atrocities all the time. During the US revolution, the actions of Light Horse Harry Lee are often passed over in American history books, as they don't really fit the narrative.

Did Dier Yassin happen? Sure. Were Ben Gurion and co Responsible? They didn't order that. But if they Arabs hadn't had a record of atrocity going back 20 years, and a habit of fighting under women's skirts what happened there would have been a lot less likely. Can anyone wipe that stain away? No. It happened. Do the arabs bear some responsibility for it..? Very much so. They set up the conditions of that battle, so having established the rules of engagement, they are equally responsible.

Ben Gurion and Co were not Terrorists. No more so than Jefferson and Madison were terrorists. But both sets were a bit to cozy with some of those who were. But that is the way revolutions work.

To funny..

 

[Trajan]

I don't make these comments "Willy Nilly"..

Irgun and the Stern gang were terrorists and they were starting points. Israel has been involved in some particularly nasty behavior through out the years that you guys breeze over or choose to ignore. That's not my problem. And it's history. You ain't fooling anyone by laughing it off. The Arabs are well aware of these things as well. And if the type of negotiation strategies we engage in involves this sort of behavior..then it's not going to go very far. Which is, for the most part, is why most attempts have been an abject failure in this regard.

you're ranting and now engaged in changing or attempting to mitigate your comment, either disown or ......

True. The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians.

links please.

This is the last time.

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1990 Temple Mount riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of Israeli assassinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is your answer to-

The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians.

you understand that this is preposterous, right? one was not carried out by Israelis, one was a response to a riot, the other an isolated list of individual actions............so,don't feel exonerated, frankly this counts for little.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't make these comments "Willy Nilly"..

Irgun and the Stern gang were terrorists and they were starting points. Israel has been involved in some particularly nasty behavior through out the years that you guys breeze over or choose to ignore. That's not my problem. And it's history. You ain't fooling anyone by laughing it off. The Arabs are well aware of these things as well. And if the type of negotiation strategies we engage in involves this sort of behavior..then it's not going to go very far. Which is, for the most part, is why most attempts have been an abject failure in this regard.

you're ranting and now engaged in changing or attempting to mitigate your comment, either disown or ......

True. The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians.

links please.

This is the last time.

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1990 Temple Mount riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of Israeli assassinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

an eye for an eye kind of like what the U.S. GOVERNMENT DOES

 

[edthecynic]

The guys who set up the state of Israel were not terrorists.

They did have some guys running around who were, and they let them come in as legal, but the Stern and Irgun factions put down their guns and fought it out on the ballot after that.

And the Irgun and Stern folks weren't attacking the Arabs. They were attacking the british. And they were attacking military installations. They managed to blow up the headquarters of the British occupation.

The arabs attacked the Jews, and the British let them. So the Brits had to go.

Everyone knows about Dier Yassin now. Mostly because it was such a freaky event. People forget what the arabs did in Hebron and a dozen other places. It became common and boring.

One could argue that the Israelis should have banned Sharon and Begin from running for office after what they did. It would be a tough argument to make in comparison to what was routine from the arab side at the time.

I love CON$ervative rationalizations! The terrorists weren't terrorists because they were terrorizing the British rather than Arabs,

They were attacking a military force. Not school buses and birthday parties.
And why the British were there in the first place is an interesting question in itself. The brits and the French moved in as the new colonial power after the Ottomans were expelled. There was no legitimate reason for them to be there.

The Irgun and Stern were terrorists in the same way Francis Marion might be considered a terrorist. But there is quite a huge difference between blowing up a military installation of an occupying power and blowing up a wedding reception. The corpses don't recognize that of course. They are equally dead.

Also the Stern Gang and the Irgun were not part of the Yishuv organization that brought about independence. They seem to have actually slowed things down.

In any war, which is itself an atrocity, there are greater or worse atrocities all the time. During the US revolution, the actions of Light Horse Harry Lee are often passed over in American history books, as they don't really fit the narrative.

Did Dier Yassin happen? Sure. Were Ben Gurion and co Responsible? They didn't order that. But if they Arabs hadn't had a record of atrocity going back 20 years, and a habit of fighting under women's skirts what happened there would have been a lot less likely. Can anyone wipe that stain away? No. It happened. Do the arabs bear some responsibility for it..? Very much so. They set up the conditions of that battle, so having established the rules of engagement, they are equally responsible.

Ben Gurion and Co were not Terrorists. No more so than Jefferson and Madison were terrorists. But both sets were a bit to cozy with some of those who were. But that is the way revolutions work.

Yet another rationalization for terrorism not being terrorism.

If history is an acceptable rationalization, then there can never be terrorism against the Jews since they not only have a history of it, but also they are so proud of it they put it in their holy books.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

De 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

De 3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Ez 9: 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women...

Hosea 13: 16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

 

[Trajan]

What a POMPOUS delusional hypocrite!!!!

I'm still waiting for you to back up what was promised to Israel in 2004!!!!

and I told you.and I jerked you around becasue you claimed to know yet never ever did make the connection , you told me you did, you never ever posted what I finally revealed....go look.

and while you're at it, wheres my apology?

Unless you went back and edited some post like you did this one, you never revealed anything except you have no idea what was promised in 2004.
Please link, as you demand from Sallow, to this imaginary or edited post.

I never said I had no idea, don't put words in my mouth.

I said exchange of letters, I am not going back to find it for you. the thread is right here or in grunts11b's...and i have just told you, again. you posted all manner of stuff from 04 but you never ever found the right one....interesting.



next- I think its pretty clear by now what obama said, as he has spent significant political capital and a speech to rectify the situation his poor understanding of history/politics forced him to make, harper told him no way, the Guardian ran story on it, Mitchel had to come out of retirement to play clean up with mata hari (amonpour) so, wheres the apology?

 

[edthecynic]

and I told you.and I jerked you around becasue you claimed to know yet never ever did make the connection , you told me you did, you never ever posted what I finally revealed....go look.

and while you're at it, wheres my apology?

Unless you went back and edited some post like you did this one, you never revealed anything except you have no idea what was promised in 2004.
Please link, as you demand from Sallow, to this imaginary or edited post.

I never said I had no idea, don't put words in my mouth.

I said exchange of letters, I am not going back to find it for you. the thread is right here or in grunts11b's...and i have just told you, again. you posted all manner of stuff from 04 but you never ever found the right one....interesting.

I said you have no idea what was promised in 2004, and I say you still don't, so I didn't put words in your mouth. It was YOUR failure to state what was promised that revealed that you have no idea!

And saying an exchange of letters, after you said a "a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004" does not change the fact that you still have not said what was promised in 2004 by whatever form you think it was promised. You are not going to go back to the imaginary post because you know it doesn't exist.

 

[Jack Fate]

This is the last time.

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1990 Temple Mount riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of Israeli assassinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a credible scholarly site according to the founder of Wikipedia and many college professors.

This wasn't directed as you..and these events are matters of history. I sourced what was available and not on a biased arab site.

You need to find better sources for your credibility.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unless you went back and edited some post like you did this one, you never revealed anything except you have no idea what was promised in 2004.
Please link, as you demand from Sallow, to this imaginary or edited post.

I never said I had no idea, don't put words in my mouth.

I said exchange of letters, I am not going back to find it for you. the thread is right here or in grunts11b's...and i have just told you, again. you posted all manner of stuff from 04 but you never ever found the right one....interesting.

I said you have no idea what was promised in 2004, and I say you still don't, so I didn't put words in your mouth. It was YOUR failure to state what was promised that revealed that you have no idea!

And saying an exchange of letters, after you said a "a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004" does not change the fact that you still have not said what was promised in 2004 by whatever form you think it was promised. You are not going to go back to the imaginary post because you know it doesn't exist.

In 2004 “we” sent Israel a letter, signed by then-President Bush and approved by Congress. It said America would never ask Israel to go back to the 1967 borders.

Obama Breaks US Promise to Israel in Middle East Speech « High Desert Referendum

 

[edthecynic]

I never said I had no idea, don't put words in my mouth.

I said exchange of letters, I am not going back to find it for you. the thread is right here or in grunts11b's...and i have just told you, again. you posted all manner of stuff from 04 but you never ever found the right one....interesting.

I said you have no idea what was promised in 2004, and I say you still don't, so I didn't put words in your mouth. It was YOUR failure to state what was promised that revealed that you have no idea!

And saying an exchange of letters, after you said a "a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004" does not change the fact that you still have not said what was promised in 2004 by whatever form you think it was promised. You are not going to go back to the imaginary post because you know it doesn't exist.

In 2004 “we” sent Israel a letter, signed by then-President Bush and approved by Congress. It said America would never ask Israel to go back to the 1967 borders.

Obama Breaks US Promise to Israel in Middle East Speech « High Desert Referendum

Let's see if Trajan says that is the promise he's been alluding to.

BTW, there was no link or even a quote from the alleged letter, just the blogger's opinion of what was promised. Did you catch that?

 

[Trajan]

I never said I had no idea, don't put words in my mouth.

I said exchange of letters, I am not going back to find it for you. the thread is right here or in grunts11b's...and i have just told you, again. you posted all manner of stuff from 04 but you never ever found the right one....interesting.

I said you have no idea what was promised in 2004, and I say you still don't, so I didn't put words in your mouth. It was YOUR failure to state what was promised that revealed that you have no idea!

And saying an exchange of letters, after you said a "a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004" does not change the fact that you still have not said what was promised in 2004 by whatever form you think it was promised. You are not going to go back to the imaginary post because you know it doesn't exist.

In 2004 “we” sent Israel a letter, signed by then-President Bush and approved by Congress. It said America would never ask Israel to go back to the 1967 borders.

Obama Breaks US Promise to Israel in Middle East Speech « High Desert Referendum

Exchange of letters Sharon-Bush 14-Apr-2004

 

[Sallow]

you're ranting and now engaged in changing or attempting to mitigate your comment, either disown or ......



links please.

This is the last time.

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1990 Temple Mount riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of Israeli assassinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is your answer to-

The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians.

you understand that this is preposterous, right? one was not carried out by Israelis, one was a response to a riot, the other an isolated list of individual actions............so,don't feel exonerated, frankly this counts for little.

Oh for petes sake! IDF surrounded 2 fucking towns and sent in militants to slaughter unarmed civilians.

I'm done here.

 

[Jack Fate]

This is the last time.

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1990 Temple Mount riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of Israeli assassinations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is your answer to-

The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians.

you understand that this is preposterous, right? one was not carried out by Israelis, one was a response to a riot, the other an isolated list of individual actions............so,don't feel exonerated, frankly this counts for little.

Oh for petes sake! IDF surrounded 2 fucking towns and sent in militants to slaughter unarmed civilians.

I'm done here.

Is that the excuse hamas uses to fire rockets at unarmed civilians in Israel?

 

[Trajan]

yes apparently you are. you are once again a victim of your own sloppy commentary, hey, whats new?

 

[Trajan]

edthecynic

now after all the mealy mouthed circumlocutions and misdirection, back to the reality, the topic.....an admission that you were wrong would be good form here, Obama screwed up, I would never hope for an apology.

 

[edthecynic]

I said you have no idea what was promised in 2004, and I say you still don't, so I didn't put words in your mouth. It was YOUR failure to state what was promised that revealed that you have no idea!

And saying an exchange of letters, after you said a "a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004" does not change the fact that you still have not said what was promised in 2004 by whatever form you think it was promised. You are not going to go back to the imaginary post because you know it doesn't exist.

In 2004 “we” sent Israel a letter, signed by then-President Bush and approved by Congress. It said America would never ask Israel to go back to the 1967 borders.

Obama Breaks US Promise to Israel in Middle East Speech « High Desert Referendum

Exchange of letters Sharon-Bush 14-Apr-2004

So I take it that Yes that is the promise made in 2004.

Just one question, why does the year 1967 not appear in the letter from Bush??????

I will also point out that 1967 does not appear in the congressional resolution either!!!

Read The Bill: H. Con. Res. 460 [108th] - GovTrack.us

 

[Trajan]

exactly, see post 69, I knew I would get you here sooner or later.

Now, Ed, its time for you to either, say yea, I see, you're right or, he should have just played the down-low on any mention of 1967 borders most especially when he made it appear he was speaking of June 4th.....

or, backwater and obfuscate some more.

 

[Jack Fate]

BO has revealed himself to be an idealogue. He has listened to leftist professors and Palestinian sympathizers his entire academic life. I hope the world can hold on for a year and a half until we can replace this idiot.