Settlements

[Shusha]

The presence of Jews is not terrorism. You can try to spin it all you want, and my answer will not change.

Why don't you answer Correll 's question?

 

[abi]

If the settlements were restricted to jews of middle eastern descent, would that make them ok in your view?

They are flagrantly illegal regardless of religion.

Okay, Shusha, will you answer now?

 

[Shusha]

If the settlements were restricted to jews of middle eastern descent, would that make them ok in your view?

They are flagrantly illegal regardless of religion.

Okay, Shusha, will you answer now?

What do you want me to answer?

 

[teddyearp]

Debatable, but i never said anything about that.

Debatable. Are you saying you didn't post something to the effect of, 'well the Jews would have to leave of course'?

 

[abi]

Debatable, but i never said anything about that.

Debatable. Are you saying you didn't post something to the effect of, 'well the Jews would have to leave of course'?

Never. Such an odd poster you are,

 

[teddyearp]

Israel has to stop its violence before anything can improve.

That is a two way street. And you know it.

I disagree. It is NOT a two-way street.<snip>

Catching up a bit, but I was just bringing it down to Tinmore's level. Hostilities and responses are violence. With obvious differences of course.

 

[teddyearp]

Debatable, but i never said anything about that.

Debatable. Are you saying you didn't post something to the effect of, 'well the Jews would have to leave of course'?

Never. Such an odd poster you are,

You are lying. And you and I and the rest of the board knows it.

 

[abi]

You are lying. And you and I and the rest of the board knows it.

Okay, but if you actually quote me, you would make a better case.

What about how the settlements embody sate-sponsored terror?

I guess you won't speak on that.

 

[teddyearp]

Honestly, abi, I am growing weary trying to counter your half truths and your denials. You have a boat load of threads here and I have actually undertaken to find the exact one tonight. But because of the volume of your threads, tracking it down is difficult, so if you wish to deny it, then I suppose you may, but I truly believe I know what I read.

However this one comes close, but since the thread is closed I cannot use the quote function directly. Here is a link to the post:

This is how we end it! (solution)

And I will quote the part that does seem to mean about the same thing:

If Jews are worried about their safety, there are many choices for them where they can find it.

I am sure the implication you are making there is very clear for all of us to read.

I will speak on your claim of "State-sponsored terror". It is just the latest slogan that you have chosen to use here. And repeat over and over again in multiple threads. Not even Tinmore or Fanger or Monti or Coyote or Shusha or Roudy or Flac or Indee or Foreveryoung or Humanity or myself chose to use 'slogans' that are copied and posted and posted again as an answer in every single thread we contribute to. All the aforementioned (and others not mentioned) chose to actually address (or not) a post.

And that is what has made it even harder and tiring to attempt to find the exact post I mentioned. Perhaps this was your intent, no?

Repeating slogans was something that louie888 and Ventura77 used all the time. We see what happened to them. Keep up the good work at it though, please?

 

[abi]

It's not a slogan and it is repeated because everyone ducks it or calls it the Jewish peoples' right to self-d.

And I can't respond to your attack as I don't know the context of what you quoted. It usually has an arrow to go to the post, but your did not.

 

[teddyearp]

Sigh. It was not an attack. You asked where you said something. I gave full disclosure. I explained that the thread was closed. Have you ever tried to quote a post from a closed thread? You will not be able to, therefore no arrow. All I could do was link to the exact post where you made the statement that I put into the quote box. Granted, the link would seem to point to the whole thread, but trust me, it points to the post from which I put your words into the quote box. Follow the link I put above, little one, and then you will see.

We all know that you are much more proficient than the ignorance you are now claiming here.

And your slogans are your own personal duck. I'm sure that has been pointed out to you. Do not make me find that post, please.

 

[abi]

And your slogans are your own personal duck.

State-sponsored terrorism is not a slogan.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The presence of Jews is not terrorism. You can try to spin it all you want, and my answer will not change.

Why don't you answer Correll 's question?

Jews, per se, are not the problem.

Bringing Israel with them is the problem.

 

[teddyearp]

And your slogans are your own personal duck.

State-sponsored terrorism is not a slogan.

True. But repeating it over and over again across multiple threads regardless of topic is.

But go ahead and keep doing so in denial of that fact.

Please do. Pretty please do.

 

[abi]

I will because of denial. Some people come here and champion this terrorism as they scream Hamas and rockets in the next sentence. It's wrong. Supporting the settlements is supporting terrorism.

 

[Shusha]

The presence of Jews is not terrorism. You can try to spin it all you want, and my answer will not change.

Why don't you answer Correll 's question?

Jews, per se, are not the problem.

Bringing Israel with them is the problem.

Yes. We agree. The problem is one of nationality and not one of ethnicity. BUT -- since final nationality will be part of the negotiation process it is much less a problem -- or it is a different problem -- than is normally discussed.

Again, if we accept the idea that there will be both Arabs and Jews in both Israel and the new State of Palestine in a two-state solution the only question is what the nationality of those Arabs and Jews will be. There are a number of options, including dual citizenship and permanent residency. This is all subject to negotiation.

 

[abi]

Yes. We agree. The problem is one of nationality and not one of ethnicity. BUT -- since final nationality will be part of the negotiation process it is much less a problem -- or it is a different problem -- than is normally discussed.

Again, if we accept the idea that there will be both Arabs and Jews in both Israel and the new State of Palestine in a two-state solution the only question is what the nationality of those Arabs and Jews will be. There are a number of options, including dual citizenship and permanent residency. This is all subject to negotiation.

You are derailing your own thread. again. But, if I may follow, is that not another reason for one democratic state?

 

[Correll]

If the settlements were restricted to jews of middle eastern descent, would that make them ok in your view?

They are flagrantly illegal regardless of religion.

Okay, Shusha, will you answer now?

YOu made it racial before. My question asked what if the settlements were restricted to jews of Middle Eastern descent.


That would fix your racial complaint from before.


Would that be ok then?


YOu just commented that religion is not the issue, so, that issue is dismissed.

 

[Sixties Fan]

If the settlements were restricted to jews of middle eastern descent, would that make them ok in your view?

They are flagrantly illegal regardless of religion.

Okay, Shusha, will you answer now?

YOu made it racial before. My question asked what if the settlements were restricted to jews of Middle Eastern descent.


That would fix your racial complaint from before.


Would that be ok then?


YOu just commented that religion is not the issue, so, that issue is dismissed.

Since Jews are not a race, why are you using the word Racial, at all?

Askenazi, Sepharadic or Mizrahi, they are all Jews, and live together.

You do not mention the Arab settlements where it is mainly one clan per settlement. Are they being racist towards other Arab clans?

 

[Correll]

If the settlements were restricted to jews of middle eastern descent, would that make them ok in your view?

They are flagrantly illegal regardless of religion.

Okay, Shusha, will you answer now?

YOu made it racial before. My question asked what if the settlements were restricted to jews of Middle Eastern descent.


That would fix your racial complaint from before.


Would that be ok then?


YOu just commented that religion is not the issue, so, that issue is dismissed.

Since Jews are not a race, why are you using the word Racial, at all?

Askenazi, Sepharadic or Mizrahi, they are all Jews, and live together.

You do not mention the Arab settlements where it is mainly one clan per settlement. Are they being racist towards other Arab clans?

Abi used the term racial, in reference, I believe to the jews lumping all the jews together with European descent jews.


I asked what I thought would be the obvious question, but have not received a clear answer.