British MPs vote to recognise Palestinian state

[Beelzebub]

I

Lipush is a hopeless fanatic. His idol is an Irgun commander, the terrorist group.

Lipush is a female.

And this coming from the scumbag who said he HOPES settlers get killed.

That doesn't sound like you at all Monte.

Toasty must be confused. If you had said that there would be a quick enough way for Toast to make his point by quoting it.

I expect he is taking about when the Zionists were saying that all Israel Adults were either IDF or reservists and possibly militia, and as such were legitimate military targets for Hamas.

Not confused at all. I remember it clearly.

BTW, how much does Monti pay you to be his secretary ?

Ok. So link to it, or quote it.

It happened months ago. How exactly am I supposed to find it ?

Well there is an expression:
Put up or shut up.

Have you heard of it?

 

[toastman]

"Recognition of Palestinian statehood must be as optional as recognition of Israeli statehood."

Fine. Then the other way around should go to. "Any attempts on erasing the "Palestinian" statehood should be euqally ok with declaring "Palestine" is a terror state with no right to exist."

Is that equation well-suiting?

As both would be madness, yes - equally (un) acceptable.

There is no "apartheid". Those who say it don't realize what it is. Apartheid is it when a normal state denies basic rights from a group of its own citizens based on nothing but race.

Palestinians are- a) not Israelis citizens and b) not discriminated based on race, but based on security reasons.

Those who live in Israel with blue ID suffer no lack of basic rights.

So any "apartheid" claiming is stupid and incorrect

Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore.

What specifically did she lie about

"Recognition of Palestinian statehood must be as optional as recognition of Israeli statehood."

Fine. Then the other way around should go to. "Any attempts on erasing the "Palestinian" statehood should be euqally ok with declaring "Palestine" is a terror state with no right to exist."

Is that equation well-suiting?

As both would be madness, yes - equally (un) acceptable.

There is no "apartheid". Those who say it don't realize what it is. Apartheid is it when a normal state denies basic rights from a group of its own citizens based on nothing but race.

Palestinians are- a) not Israelis citizens and b) not discriminated based on race, but based on security reasons.

Those who live in Israel with blue ID suffer no lack of basic rights.

So any "apartheid" claiming is stupid and incorrect

Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore.

'Instead of spewing your usual 'Zionist Lies', why don't you tell us what specifically she lied about.

Would it be of great interest to you?

The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They do go on. And on. And on.

Nice deflection. But you claimed Lipush was lying in her pot and I asked you to show me specifically what SHE was lying about.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

Why is it that you always call someone answering your question a "deflection"? Do you think it makes you look smart? Or is it a term you heard, and feel you can repeat it often to avoid saying "Thank you for answering. You have made me look embarrassingly stupid, Again." ? I think that is what we must understand you to mean.

I didn't claim "Lipush was lying in her pot" (sic)
I suggest you re-read what was said. You have English as a second language, perhaps, Toasty?

Lets see. Lipush posts about how there i no Apartheid in Israel and that all citizens have equal rights. You responded with:
"Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore"

Now you are claiming that you didn't suggest she was lying in her post. Well, not in those words, but you obviously did mean it.
Funny, whenever you get called out on your lies, you start denying denying denying.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, as you have proved all of us many times.
I suggest you start doing book reports to help. But no books above grade 5 level. We don't want you to get ahead of yourself.

 

[toastman]

"A theocracy is a form of government where God or some other supernatural being (deity) is considered the official ruler. "

That's interesting.
So Iran has been misidentified as a theocracy. The Supreme leader there being clearly identified as Ali Khanenei.
Though in common parlance Iran is identified as a theocracy. In the same was as Israel is.

Is common parlance wrong? Or has the dictionary definition focused on a too academic appreciation of the term, missing out on how it is widely used and understood?

According to wikipedia, today's theocracies are Iran, Vatican City (obvious) and countries that abide by Sharia law.

Cool. You have made my point.
MONTE: Toasty has made it clear that his definition of 'Theocracy" is not what is understood or used generally, so you can continue to use the term as you do, with his blessing.

God, you are a massive idiot. Did you graduate from high school ?

 

[toastman]

I

Lipush is a female.

And this coming from the scumbag who said he HOPES settlers get killed.

That doesn't sound like you at all Monte.

Toasty must be confused. If you had said that there would be a quick enough way for Toast to make his point by quoting it.

I expect he is taking about when the Zionists were saying that all Israel Adults were either IDF or reservists and possibly militia, and as such were legitimate military targets for Hamas.

Not confused at all. I remember it clearly.

BTW, how much does Monti pay you to be his secretary ?

Ok. So link to it, or quote it.

It happened months ago. How exactly am I supposed to find it ?

Well there is an expression:
Put up or shut up.

Have you heard of it?

Yes. But I've also heard that denying the truth doesn't make it disappear.

BTW, how long have you and Monti been.....together?

 

[Beelzebub]

I

That doesn't sound like you at all Monte.

Toasty must be confused. If you had said that there would be a quick enough way for Toast to make his point by quoting it.

I expect he is taking about when the Zionists were saying that all Israel Adults were either IDF or reservists and possibly militia, and as such were legitimate military targets for Hamas.

Not confused at all. I remember it clearly.

BTW, how much does Monti pay you to be his secretary ?

Ok. So link to it, or quote it.

It happened months ago. How exactly am I supposed to find it ?

Well there is an expression:
Put up or shut up.

Have you heard of it?

Yes. But I've also heard that denying the truth doesn't make it disappear.

BTW, how long have you and Monti been.....together?

Careful there Toasty. You could be undoing much of the Pinkwashing that Israel likes to associate itself to.

 

[Beelzebub]

As both would be madness, yes - equally (un) acceptable.


Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore.

What specifically did she lie about

As both would be madness, yes - equally (un) acceptable.


Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore.

'Instead of spewing your usual 'Zionist Lies', why don't you tell us what specifically she lied about.

Would it be of great interest to you?

The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They do go on. And on. And on.

Nice deflection. But you claimed Lipush was lying in her pot and I asked you to show me specifically what SHE was lying about.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

Why is it that you always call someone answering your question a "deflection"? Do you think it makes you look smart? Or is it a term you heard, and feel you can repeat it often to avoid saying "Thank you for answering. You have made me look embarrassingly stupid, Again." ? I think that is what we must understand you to mean.

I didn't claim "Lipush was lying in her pot" (sic)
I suggest you re-read what was said. You have English as a second language, perhaps, Toasty?

Lets see. Lipush posts about how there i no Apartheid in Israel and that all citizens have equal rights. You responded with:
"Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore"

Now you are claiming that you didn't suggest she was lying in her post. Well, not in those words, but you obviously did mean it.
Funny, whenever you get called out on your lies, you start denying denying denying.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, as you have proved all of us many times.
I suggest you start doing book reports to help. But no books above grade 5 level. We don't want you to get ahead of yourself.

So you notice that the claim of "no Apartheid in Israel" had doubt cast upon it. But ask me to identify what she was lying about?
Make up your mind Toasty. Do you want Zionist lies pointed out or not. Neither seems to make you happy.

 

[Beelzebub]

"A theocracy is a form of government where God or some other supernatural being (deity) is considered the official ruler. "

That's interesting.
So Iran has been misidentified as a theocracy. The Supreme leader there being clearly identified as Ali Khanenei.
Though in common parlance Iran is identified as a theocracy. In the same was as Israel is.

Is common parlance wrong? Or has the dictionary definition focused on a too academic appreciation of the term, missing out on how it is widely used and understood?

According to wikipedia, today's theocracies are Iran, Vatican City (obvious) and countries that abide by Sharia law.

Cool. You have made my point.
MONTE: Toasty has made it clear that his definition of 'Theocracy" is not what is understood or used generally, so you can continue to use the term as you do, with his blessing.

God, you are a massive idiot. Did you graduate from high school ?

But I'm right, and you have proven me right. You are making it too easy to put you down Toasty.
In fact, you are doing the job for me. I barely need to be here. I just smile at you and you disprove your own argument.

 

[toastman]

What specifically did she lie about
'Instead of spewing your usual 'Zionist Lies', why don't you tell us what specifically she lied about.

Would it be of great interest to you?

The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They do go on. And on. And on.

Nice deflection. But you claimed Lipush was lying in her pot and I asked you to show me specifically what SHE was lying about.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

Why is it that you always call someone answering your question a "deflection"? Do you think it makes you look smart? Or is it a term you heard, and feel you can repeat it often to avoid saying "Thank you for answering. You have made me look embarrassingly stupid, Again." ? I think that is what we must understand you to mean.

I didn't claim "Lipush was lying in her pot" (sic)
I suggest you re-read what was said. You have English as a second language, perhaps, Toasty?

Lets see. Lipush posts about how there i no Apartheid in Israel and that all citizens have equal rights. You responded with:
"Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore"

Now you are claiming that you didn't suggest she was lying in her post. Well, not in those words, but you obviously did mean it.
Funny, whenever you get called out on your lies, you start denying denying denying.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, as you have proved all of us many times.
I suggest you start doing book reports to help. But no books above grade 5 level. We don't want you to get ahead of yourself.

So you notice that the claim of "no Apartheid in Israel" had doubt cast upon it. But ask me to identify what she was lying about?
Make up your mind Toasty. Do you want Zionist lies pointed out or not. Neither seems to make you happy.

So much blabbery and deflecting from the original post which asked yiu to identify the specific lies in Lipush post.
You truly are a master bullshitter! Now I see why you and Monti get along so well.

 

[toastman]

"A theocracy is a form of government where God or some other supernatural being (deity) is considered the official ruler. "

That's interesting.
So Iran has been misidentified as a theocracy. The Supreme leader there being clearly identified as Ali Khanenei.
Though in common parlance Iran is identified as a theocracy. In the same was as Israel is.

Is common parlance wrong? Or has the dictionary definition focused on a too academic appreciation of the term, missing out on how it is widely used and understood?

According to wikipedia, today's theocracies are Iran, Vatican City (obvious) and countries that abide by Sharia law.

Cool. You have made my point.
MONTE: Toasty has made it clear that his definition of 'Theocracy" is not what is understood or used generally, so you can continue to use the term as you do, with his blessing.

God, you are a massive idiot. Did you graduate from high school ?

But I'm right, and you have proven me right. You are making it too easy to put you down Toasty.
In fact, you are doing the job for me. I barely need to be here. I just smile at you and you disprove your own argument.

I didn't disprove my own argument. You are seeing things in a very distorted manner Beezle.
I posted earlier what a theocracy is and how it does not apply to the Israeli government and after that I showed you which countries are considered theocracies. You responded with your usual jibberish.
You are quite the odd fella...

 

[Beelzebub]

Ah.

You cannot or refuse to follow the logical conclusions so clearly laid out for you.
You really are a very emotional person Toasty. Its like playing chess with a penguin. I can set up the pieces, move you into checkmate in the fewest moves, and you just waddle around honking for more fish.

 

[toastman]

Ah.

You cannot or refuse to follow the logical conclusions so clearly laid out for you.
You really are a very emotional person Toasty. Its like playing chess with a penguin. I can set up the pieces, move you into checkmate in the fewest moves, and you just waddle around honking for more fish.

It says a lot about you when you make stuff up in order to make it seem like you have the upper hand in the debate. But anyone can read my posts and see that your assertions are not only completely flase, but borderline psychotic.
The funny thing is that this all started when I asked you a simple question to identify the lies in a certain post and in another post I posted about which countries are theocracies.
The extreme jibberish from you that followed is clearly an attempt to mask the fact that you made a massive fool out of yourself when you called Lipushs claims lies, and then were unable to prove so.
And here I was thinking that the only issue you had was reading comprehension. But now it's obvious that that's the least of your worries.

 

[Beelzebub]

Oh Toasty Toasty Toasty.

Your appreciation of "reality" would take a whole school of psychoanalysts a lifetime to catalogue and explain.

 

[toastman]

Oh Toasty Toasty Toasty.

Your appreciation of "reality" would take a whole school of psychoanalysts a lifetime to catalogue and explain.

What does this have to do with the fact that reading comprehension is nothing compared to the obviously more serious mental issues that have plagued your mind?
You're deflecting again Beezle

 

[Beelzebub]

What do you mean by 'deflecting'?

I answered all your questions, refuted your points, watched over as you undermined your own arguments and referred to you as a penguin. What more could I do for you?

This 'deflecting': It means you don't like the answer, doesn't it?

 

[Indofred]

Isn't the Jewish state a state based on a single religion?
If the state is based on a religious ideal, it must be a theocracy.

Personally, even if a state is 99% one religion, I believe all religions should be free to open buildings for their own version of the truth.
Israel has a rather nasty record of destroying mosques and keeping Muslims out of these buildings.
In other words, they can hardly complain about anyone else.

 

[Mindful]

What specifically did she lie about
'Instead of spewing your usual 'Zionist Lies', why don't you tell us what specifically she lied about.

Would it be of great interest to you?

The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They do go on. And on. And on.

Nice deflection. But you claimed Lipush was lying in her pot and I asked you to show me specifically what SHE was lying about.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

Why is it that you always call someone answering your question a "deflection"? Do you think it makes you look smart? Or is it a term you heard, and feel you can repeat it often to avoid saying "Thank you for answering. You have made me look embarrassingly stupid, Again." ? I think that is what we must understand you to mean.

I didn't claim "Lipush was lying in her pot" (sic)
I suggest you re-read what was said. You have English as a second language, perhaps, Toasty?

Lets see. Lipush posts about how there i no Apartheid in Israel and that all citizens have equal rights. You responded with:
"Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore"

Now you are claiming that you didn't suggest she was lying in her post. Well, not in those words, but you obviously did mean it.
Funny, whenever you get called out on your lies, you start denying denying denying.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, as you have proved all of us many times.
I suggest you start doing book reports to help. But no books above grade 5 level. We don't want you to get ahead of yourself.

So you notice that the claim of "no Apartheid in Israel" had doubt cast upon it. But ask me to identify what she was lying about?
Make up your mind Toasty. Do you want Zionist lies pointed out or not. Neither seems to make you happy.

All you are doing is projecting your own personal hatred of Israel, Jews, (Zionists as you call them) and whatever else, in your posts. Nothing constructive or helpful, as I can see.

 

[Mindful]

The Settlements Dodge Commentary Magazine

For as Eugene Kontorovich pointed out here at the time, there had in reality been no annexation whatsoever. Israel had simply come to a factual administrative finding about the status of the land in question (much of it purchased by Jews before Israel’s founding), but the world was encouraged to imagine privately owned Palestinian property being appropriated for colonization.

 

[Penelope]

Lipush is a hopeless fanatic. His idol is an Irgun commander, the terrorist group.

Lipush is a female.

And this coming from the scumbag who said he HOPES settlers get killed.

That doesn't sound like you at all Monte.

Toasty must be confused. If you had said that there would be a quick enough way for Toast to make his point by quoting it.

I expect he is taking about when the Zionists were saying that all Israel Adults were either IDF or reservists and possibly militia, and as such were legitimate military targets for Hamas.

Not confused at all. I remember it clearly.

BTW, how much does Monti pay you to be his secretary ?

You are very confused. You cannot point to any post where I said such a thing.

It happened months ago. You expect me to go search your post history?
It doesn't change the fact that you did say it. The fact that you deny it shows what a coward you are

"A theocracy is a form of government where God or some other supernatural being (deity) is considered the official ruler. "

That's interesting.
So Iran has been misidentified as a theocracy. The Supreme leader there being clearly identified as Ali Khanenei.
Though in common parlance Iran is identified as a theocracy. In the same was as Israel is.

Is common parlance wrong? Or has the dictionary definition focused on a too academic appreciation of the term, missing out on how it is widely used and understood?

According to wikipedia, today's theocracies are Iran, Vatican City (obvious) and countries that abide by Sharia law.

I agree Bullshitseeker ! A huge victory for Palestine !

As both would be madness, yes - equally (un) acceptable.


Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore.

What specifically did she lie about

As both would be madness, yes - equally (un) acceptable.


Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore.

'Instead of spewing your usual 'Zionist Lies', why don't you tell us what specifically she lied about.

Would it be of great interest to you?

The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They do go on. And on. And on.

Nice deflection. But you claimed Lipush was lying in her pot and I asked you to show me specifically what SHE was lying about.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

Why is it that you always call someone answering your question a "deflection"? Do you think it makes you look smart? Or is it a term you heard, and feel you can repeat it often to avoid saying "Thank you for answering. You have made me look embarrassingly stupid, Again." ? I think that is what we must understand you to mean.

I didn't claim "Lipush was lying in her pot" (sic)
I suggest you re-read what was said. You have English as a second language, perhaps, Toasty?

Lets see. Lipush posts about how there i no Apartheid in Israel and that all citizens have equal rights. You responded with:
"Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore"

Now you are claiming that you didn't suggest she was lying in her post. Well, not in those words, but you obviously did mean it.
Funny, whenever you get called out on your lies, you start denying denying denying.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, as you have proved all of us many times.
I suggest you start doing book reports to help. But no books above grade 5 level. We don't want you to get ahead of yourself.

As both would be madness, yes - equally (un) acceptable.


Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore.

What specifically did she lie about

As both would be madness, yes - equally (un) acceptable.


Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore.

'Instead of spewing your usual 'Zionist Lies', why don't you tell us what specifically she lied about.

Would it be of great interest to you?

The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They do go on. And on. And on.

Nice deflection. But you claimed Lipush was lying in her pot and I asked you to show me specifically what SHE was lying about.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

Why is it that you always call someone answering your question a "deflection"? Do you think it makes you look smart? Or is it a term you heard, and feel you can repeat it often to avoid saying "Thank you for answering. You have made me look embarrassingly stupid, Again." ? I think that is what we must understand you to mean.

I didn't claim "Lipush was lying in her pot" (sic)
I suggest you re-read what was said. You have English as a second language, perhaps, Toasty?

Lets see. Lipush posts about how there i no Apartheid in Israel and that all citizens have equal rights. You responded with:
"Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore"

Now you are claiming that you didn't suggest she was lying in her post. Well, not in those words, but you obviously did mean it.
Funny, whenever you get called out on your lies, you start denying denying denying.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, as you have proved all of us many times.
I suggest you start doing book reports to help. But no books above grade 5 level. We don't want you to get ahead of yourself.

He said and I agree:
The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They are lies, but he never said she lies.

 

[Mindful]

Lipush is a female.

And this coming from the scumbag who said he HOPES settlers get killed.

That doesn't sound like you at all Monte.

Toasty must be confused. If you had said that there would be a quick enough way for Toast to make his point by quoting it.

I expect he is taking about when the Zionists were saying that all Israel Adults were either IDF or reservists and possibly militia, and as such were legitimate military targets for Hamas.

Not confused at all. I remember it clearly.

BTW, how much does Monti pay you to be his secretary ?

You are very confused. You cannot point to any post where I said such a thing.

It happened months ago. You expect me to go search your post history?
It doesn't change the fact that you did say it. The fact that you deny it shows what a coward you are

"A theocracy is a form of government where God or some other supernatural being (deity) is considered the official ruler. "

That's interesting.
So Iran has been misidentified as a theocracy. The Supreme leader there being clearly identified as Ali Khanenei.
Though in common parlance Iran is identified as a theocracy. In the same was as Israel is.

Is common parlance wrong? Or has the dictionary definition focused on a too academic appreciation of the term, missing out on how it is widely used and understood?

According to wikipedia, today's theocracies are Iran, Vatican City (obvious) and countries that abide by Sharia law.

I agree Bullshitseeker ! A huge victory for Palestine !

What specifically did she lie about
'Instead of spewing your usual 'Zionist Lies', why don't you tell us what specifically she lied about.

Would it be of great interest to you?

The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They do go on. And on. And on.

Nice deflection. But you claimed Lipush was lying in her pot and I asked you to show me specifically what SHE was lying about.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

Why is it that you always call someone answering your question a "deflection"? Do you think it makes you look smart? Or is it a term you heard, and feel you can repeat it often to avoid saying "Thank you for answering. You have made me look embarrassingly stupid, Again." ? I think that is what we must understand you to mean.

I didn't claim "Lipush was lying in her pot" (sic)
I suggest you re-read what was said. You have English as a second language, perhaps, Toasty?

Lets see. Lipush posts about how there i no Apartheid in Israel and that all citizens have equal rights. You responded with:
"Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore"

Now you are claiming that you didn't suggest she was lying in her post. Well, not in those words, but you obviously did mean it.
Funny, whenever you get called out on your lies, you start denying denying denying.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, as you have proved all of us many times.
I suggest you start doing book reports to help. But no books above grade 5 level. We don't want you to get ahead of yourself.

What specifically did she lie about
'Instead of spewing your usual 'Zionist Lies', why don't you tell us what specifically she lied about.

Would it be of great interest to you?

The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They do go on. And on. And on.

Nice deflection. But you claimed Lipush was lying in her pot and I asked you to show me specifically what SHE was lying about.
You have SERIOUS reading comprehension issues.

Why is it that you always call someone answering your question a "deflection"? Do you think it makes you look smart? Or is it a term you heard, and feel you can repeat it often to avoid saying "Thank you for answering. You have made me look embarrassingly stupid, Again." ? I think that is what we must understand you to mean.

I didn't claim "Lipush was lying in her pot" (sic)
I suggest you re-read what was said. You have English as a second language, perhaps, Toasty?

Lets see. Lipush posts about how there i no Apartheid in Israel and that all citizens have equal rights. You responded with:
"Yes dear. Just keep telling yourself that like you convince yourself of all the other Zionist lies. No one believes you anymore"

Now you are claiming that you didn't suggest she was lying in her post. Well, not in those words, but you obviously did mean it.
Funny, whenever you get called out on your lies, you start denying denying denying.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, as you have proved all of us many times.
I suggest you start doing book reports to help. But no books above grade 5 level. We don't want you to get ahead of yourself.

He said and I agree:
The thing is, there are many Zionist lies. The best one is "God gave them Zion which is why they moved in and dispossessed the Palestinians." This is most ironic for the secular Jews who don't believe in God, but do believe he gave them the land.
Another is "A land without people for a people without land."
Another is "We don't do Apartheid."
Another is "We cannot talk to terrorists," When Israelis are the most successful terrorists to date.
Another is "The IDF don't use Human Shields."

They are lies, but he never said she lies.

"We don't do apartheid."

A Black South African on Israel and Apartheid - Prager University

 

[Challenger]

I'm fully aware, some extremists in Palestine use kids as propaganda tools, hoping some will be killed by Israel.
However, the Israeli government does the same thing.

Which is better, a few extremists doing it, or an official government policy?
Of course, neither group is good, but I'm very sure both are bastards.

The ones who use the Palestinian kids as tools ARE the Hamas people.

Israel does no such thing.

Oh, is that so? So the 100,000 or so Jewish children killed by Zionist Israeli doctors in grotesque medical experiments don't count. Perhaps not, they were only Mizrahi immigrants. Zionist JSIL has it's own Dr. Mengele; he's called Dr. Shiba.

100 00 kids were killed ? Where the **** did you read that bullshit ?

Why not watch the film and find out....