HELP - Israel vs Palestinians - Educate me

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You say that all the time.

Indeed, what have I said that is not true?

Neither were the other successor states. What is your point?

Palestine has international borders. Some countries recognize them and some don't. However, that is merely political opinion that has nothing to do with legalities.

(COMMENT)

What are the "international borders" of Palestine?
Where are they derived from?

Come on, Rocco, you pretend to be the expert. You should know this stuff.

Palestine's international borders were defined by post war treaties like the other countries that were separated from Turkey.

I have already posted a UN map of Palestine with its international borders. (Without the disclaimer that is on the map of Israel.)

I have already posted the 1949 Armistice Agreements that reference Palestine's international borders. Note: Those borders remained unchanged from 1924.

The League of Nations placed Palestine in trust of the British under the mandate system. The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.

Everything that happened since then was a violation of international law, the LoN Covenant, and the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

This is the standard Jihadist and Fedayeen claim.

Since "Everything that happened since" was approved by the same body that wrote the international laws, what law - specifically:

• What Law are you referring to?
• What violation occurred?
• Who specifically violated it?

The same international body that wrote the international laws, were responsible for the "Everything that happened since." Not that it is going to make any difference now, but the same international methodologies that created Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, was also responsible for setting the conditions that allow for the creation of Israel. The very same rights that you credit to the Palestinians, are also the rights of the Israeli:

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

Or, are you saying that the Palestinians have some superior rights?

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course not. Everybody has the same rights. The thing is that nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.

That is where that "without external interference" thing that you do not believe in comes from.

 

[toastman]

The map posted contained SUGGESTED BORDERS. The map clearly says 'Partition Plan'
The disclaimer on the maps I posted of Israel are completely irrelevant to the fact that everything on the map is 100%.
The issue is that you can't handle the truth, so you pathetically look for ways to discredit what I post.
BTW, why can't you find a map of Palestine with international borders that DOESN'T say Partition Plan?

 

[Ronin]

One Of The Most Beautiful, Accurate And True Cartoons Ever! A Masterpiece! | Globe Today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Man, you go to great lengths to make an invalid claim. (What were you thinking, that no one would check your validity?)

Although your post is relatively accurate, you leave out some critical information.

Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924. All of the territories separated from Turkey were called successor states.

(COMMENT)

Palestine was not separated from Turkey in 1924; the Syrian territory was separated. A portion of the Syrian territory had already been defined by the Allied Powers as Palestine; lesser political-administrative district included in the territory of Syria through the Treaty of Lausanne. NOTE: There were no "successor states" mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne within the Type "A" Mandate regions. Turkey was the "successor state" to the Ottoman Empire. However, in the Middle East -- all the way to the Persian Empire (Modern day Iran), there was no territory identified other then what is mentioned here. Clearly, "Palestine" was not mentioned at all; let alone to be identified as a "successor state."

ARTICLE 3

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.​

SOURCE: SECTION I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

It had international borders that were defined by post war treaties.

All of the Turkish citizens who normally lived inside those borders became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

This is all wrong. The two important documents embedded in the Treaty of Lausanne, they are Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement (the Angora Agreement) of the 20th October, 1921 and corresponding Article 8 of the Correspondence between HM's Government and the French Government respecting the Angora Agreement.

The Franc-Turkish Treaty

The UK-FR Correspondence​

These two documents are very important. I explained this previously in thumbnail form on Post #2043 (I WILL NOT BOW). They represent the crumbs to follow. And they lead you back to the Treaty of Sevres; SECTION VII - SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE; ARTICLE 95.

ARTICLE 95

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The only place where "Palestine" is mentioned is in the Treaty of Sevres. And it is the case that "Palestine" is discretionary territory to be made in any size and shape the Allied Powers may decide. As it turns-out, they made it quite big for the purpose of extending a Kingship. It was decided to set boundaries that reached from the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq).

But lets be clear. The boundaries of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine were set by, the Allied Powers, exclusively to meet their Administrative needs and agenda. It was not set by treaty. The treaty authorized great discretion and latitude to the Allied Powers in this matter. Citizenship and Nationality Laws were established by the Allied Powers (Palestine Order in Council as amended in 1925); not by treaty, and not by any Arab governing body (of which there were none).

As a nation of people inside international borders, they had inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

You keep reaching back to these "inalienable rights." The fact of the matter is, that in a time prior to the Mandate of Palestine, under the Ottoman Empire the Arabs under the Empire did not have "inalienable rights." Individual rights were determinate; based on the decree by the Sultan, the Sovereign Ruler. This is not an alien construct to the Muslims of old or Arabs of today. The "rights" of the individual are predicated on the permissions granted by the Rulers. It was only after liberation, that "inalienable rights" as a concept, were made known to the Arab Palestinians.

Further, in the time since liberation from the Empire, the Arabs Palestinians have exercised their right of self-determination several times; usually in the negative sense, but sometimes in the affirmative sense.

Finally, "inalienable rights" are not a shield. Even the US had to fight a war of independence in the exercise of these rights. Freedom is not given. It must be earned and constantly maintained.

The League of Nations placed Palestine in trust of the British under the mandate system. The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian has never demonstrated that it could stand on its own, even unto the present day. They have yet to form an actual working and successful government. And in recent times, have even suggested that they be place back under trusteeship.

Everything that happened since then was a violation of international law, the LoN Covenant, and the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

That is your opinion. It is not substantiated by the facts. The facts are that several countries were partitioned out of the Mandates over the region. The Arab Palestinian was not satisfied with their apportionment. They started wars, and have been attempting to use the introduction of Western Laws as some sort of mechanism to substantiate their defiance to the decisions made by the Allied Powers.

• They are terrorist.
• They are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
• They are a destabilizing and unproductive culture in the region.
• They are a threat to state and regional security.

They refuse to abide by the basic Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. The fractured governments and the people support Jihad and Arm Struggle as a livelihood and calling.

If there is a violation of law, it surely has at its center, the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mojo2]

I was having a discussion with a co-worker about the Israel/Palestinian situation. I was expressing my view that I fully support Israel and their recent ground operations etc that they are taking to protect themselves. I was surprised to some degree with the level of disagreement that I received. I feel like it is common sense that Israel has to take these measures.

Some of the points he made included the following:

• Israel declared war on Egypt in 1966 and took lands that had not been theirs previously.
• Does this sound familiar with their more recent annexation of Gaza, West Bank, and The Golan Heights?
• Israel has repeatedly made promises to withdraw from areas and then continued to occupy and settle them.
• He said that Israel's stance reminds him of traditional view that cowboys and Europe had the right to conquer because they believed they were right.
• Putin's view of the world is similar to Israel. He is right and can do what he wants and could care less about truth or facts.

Unfortunately, I am not educated enough to respond to these points. Where can I go to get educated on Israel and the past that is a good source that I can trust?

Thanks in advance.

MD

Here's another informative video.




WHAT ISLAM IS NOT!

If you live in the west and are concerned about Islam and Islamization in your country, then this video has a message for you!

 

[Mojo2]

One Of The Most Beautiful, Accurate And True Cartoons Ever! A Masterpiece! | Globe Today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY

In which Arab nations do Arabs have more rights and more freedom than Israeli Arabs living in Israel?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Man, you go to great lengths to make an invalid claim. (What were you thinking, that no one would check your validity?)

You are going to great lengths to smokescreen the issues.

Although your post is relatively accurate, you leave out some critical information.

Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924. All of the territories separated from Turkey were called successor states.

(COMMENT)

Palestine was not separated from Turkey in 1924; the Syrian territory was separated. A portion of the Syrian territory had already been defined by the Allied Powers as Palestine;

How does this make sense? What is the difference with my post?

lesser political-administrative district included in the territory of Syria through the Treaty of Lausanne. NOTE: There were no "successor states" mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne within the Type "A" Mandate regions. Turkey was the "successor state" to the Ottoman Empire. However, in the Middle East -- all the way to the Persian Empire (Modern day Iran), there was no territory identified other then what is mentioned here. Clearly, "Palestine" was not mentioned at all; let alone to be identified as a "successor state."

Where do you get all of this stuff?

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129

The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

ARTICLE 3

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.​

SOURCE: SECTION I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

The only reason Syria and Iraq were mentioned was because they were defining the borders of Turkey with Syria and Iraq. Lebanon, Transjordan, and Palestine were not mentioned because they would not border with Turkey.

Why did you post this irrelevance?

(COMMENT)

This is all wrong. The two important documents embedded in the Treaty of Lausanne, they are Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement (the Angora Agreement) of the 20th October, 1921 and corresponding Article 8 of the Correspondence between HM's Government and the French Government respecting the Angora Agreement.

These two documents are very important. I explained this previously in thumbnail form on Post #2043 (I WILL NOT BOW). They represent the crumbs to follow. And they lead you back to the Treaty of Sevres; SECTION VII - SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE; ARTICLE 95.

​

The only place where "Palestine" is mentioned is in the Treaty of Sevres. And it is the case that "Palestine" is discretionary territory to be made in any size and shape the Allied Powers may decide. As it turns-out, they made it quite big for the purpose of extending a Kingship. It was decided to set boundaries that reached from the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq).

The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified.

Why are you posting this irrelevance?

But lets be clear. The boundaries of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine were set by, the Allied Powers, exclusively to meet their Administrative needs and agenda. It was not set by treaty. The treaty authorized great discretion and latitude to the Allied Powers in this matter. Citizenship and Nationality Laws were established by the Allied Powers (Palestine Order in Council as amended in 1925); not by treaty, and not by any Arab governing body (of which there were none).


(COMMENT)

You keep reaching back to these "inalienable rights." The fact of the matter is, that in a time prior to the Mandate of Palestine, under the Ottoman Empire the Arabs under the Empire did not have "inalienable rights." Individual rights were determinate; based on the decree by the Sultan, the Sovereign Ruler. This is not an alien construct to the Muslims of old or Arabs of today. The "rights" of the individual are predicated on the permissions granted by the Rulers. It was only after liberation, that "inalienable rights" as a concept, were made known to the Arab Palestinians.

Further, in the time since liberation from the Empire, the Arabs Palestinians have exercised their right of self-determination several times; usually in the negative sense, but sometimes in the affirmative sense.

Finally, "inalienable rights" are not a shield. Even the US had to fight a war of independence in the exercise of these rights. Freedom is not given. It must be earned and constantly maintained.

The League of Nations placed Palestine in trust of the British under the mandate system. The mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian has never demonstrated that it could stand on its own, even unto the present day. They have yet to form an actual working and successful government. And in recent times, have even suggested that they be place back under trusteeship.

Everything that happened since then was a violation of international law, the LoN Covenant, and the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

That is your opinion. It is not substantiated by the facts. The facts are that several countries were partitioned out of the Mandates over the region. The Arab Palestinian was not satisfied with their apportionment. They started wars, and have been attempting to use the introduction of Western Laws as some sort of mechanism to substantiate their defiance to the decisions made by the Allied Powers.

• They are terrorist.
• They are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
• They are a destabilizing and unproductive culture in the region.
• They are a threat to state and regional security.

They refuse to abide by the basic Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. The fractured governments and the people support Jihad and Arm Struggle as a livelihood and calling.

If there is a violation of law, it surely has at its center, the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then there is your obligatory slime the Palestinians section.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Man, you go to great lengths to make an invalid claim. (What were you thinking, that no one would check your validity?)

You are going to great lengths to smokescreen the issues.

(COMMENT)

Palestine was not separated from Turkey in 1924; the Syrian territory was separated. A portion of the Syrian territory had already been defined by the Allied Powers as Palestine;

How does this make sense? What is the difference with my post?


Where do you get all of this stuff?

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129

The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

The only reason Syria and Iraq were mentioned was because they were defining the borders of Turkey with Syria and Iraq. Lebanon, Transjordan, and Palestine were not mentioned because they would not border with Turkey.

Why did you post this irrelevance?


The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified.

Why are you posting this irrelevance?

But lets be clear. The boundaries of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine were set by, the Allied Powers, exclusively to meet their Administrative needs and agenda. It was not set by treaty. The treaty authorized great discretion and latitude to the Allied Powers in this matter. Citizenship and Nationality Laws were established by the Allied Powers (Palestine Order in Council as amended in 1925); not by treaty, and not by any Arab governing body (of which there were none).


(COMMENT)

You keep reaching back to these "inalienable rights." The fact of the matter is, that in a time prior to the Mandate of Palestine, under the Ottoman Empire the Arabs under the Empire did not have "inalienable rights." Individual rights were determinate; based on the decree by the Sultan, the Sovereign Ruler. This is not an alien construct to the Muslims of old or Arabs of today. The "rights" of the individual are predicated on the permissions granted by the Rulers. It was only after liberation, that "inalienable rights" as a concept, were made known to the Arab Palestinians.

Further, in the time since liberation from the Empire, the Arabs Palestinians have exercised their right of self-determination several times; usually in the negative sense, but sometimes in the affirmative sense.

Finally, "inalienable rights" are not a shield. Even the US had to fight a war of independence in the exercise of these rights. Freedom is not given. It must be earned and constantly maintained.


(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian has never demonstrated that it could stand on its own, even unto the present day. They have yet to form an actual working and successful government. And in recent times, have even suggested that they be place back under trusteeship.

Everything that happened since then was a violation of international law, the LoN Covenant, and the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

That is your opinion. It is not substantiated by the facts. The facts are that several countries were partitioned out of the Mandates over the region. The Arab Palestinian was not satisfied with their apportionment. They started wars, and have been attempting to use the introduction of Western Laws as some sort of mechanism to substantiate their defiance to the decisions made by the Allied Powers.

• They are terrorist.
• They are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
• They are a destabilizing and unproductive culture in the region.
• They are a threat to state and regional security.

They refuse to abide by the basic Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. The fractured governments and the people support Jihad and Arm Struggle as a livelihood and calling.

If there is a violation of law, it surely has at its center, the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then there is your obligatory slime the Palestinians section.

You had better give it up Tinmore. You're not making any headway with Rocco and while you're wasting bandwidth here, Hamas is getting slimed like snot on a doorknob.

 

[Challenger]

As everyone seems to be fond of posting videos here, I thought I'd join in:



It's by a Jewish-American peace activist and although it gets a bit schmaltzy at the end, it is an eye witness account of life in Palestine under the Zionist Occupation. Well worth a look if you are interested in one person's actual experience, as opposed to the hasnbara and hyperbole posted on this and other threads. Enjoy, or not, it's up to you.

 

[Indeependent]

The second I see a criticism of checkpointsi turn off the video.
Hundreds of Jews were slaughtered by homicide bombers prior to the checkpoints, so this point is complete bullshit.

 

[Challenger]

The second I see a criticism of checkpointsi turn off the video.
Hundreds of Jews were slaughtered by homicide bombers prior to the checkpoints, so this point is complete bullshit.

Checkpoints may have had a valid purpose in the 1990's but Hamas changed it's policy on suicide attacks in 2006. The real question is why is it necessary to have checkpoints between individual Palestinian villages, logically you have checkpoints on your borders to prevent undesirables entering, and even the illigal settlements have their own security arrangements so what purpose do checkpoints really serve?

 

[Hossfly]

The second I see a criticism of checkpointsi turn off the video.
Hundreds of Jews were slaughtered by homicide bombers prior to the checkpoints, so this point is complete bullshit.

Checkpoints may have had a valid purpose in the 1990's but Hamas changed it's policy on suicide attacks in 2006. The real question is why is it necessary to have checkpoints between individual Palestinian villages, logically you have checkpoints on your borders to prevent undesirables entering, and even the illigal settlements have their own security arrangements so what purpose do checkpoints really serve?

Checkpoints and tall fences keep neighbors from suicide bombing every time they hear calls to prayer.

 

[Challenger]

The second I see a criticism of checkpointsi turn off the video.
Hundreds of Jews were slaughtered by homicide bombers prior to the checkpoints, so this point is complete bullshit.

Checkpoints may have had a valid purpose in the 1990's but Hamas changed it's policy on suicide attacks in 2006. The real question is why is it necessary to have checkpoints between individual Palestinian villages, logically you have checkpoints on your borders to prevent undesirables entering, and even the illigal settlements have their own security arrangements so what purpose do checkpoints really serve?

Checkpoints and tall fences keep neighbors from suicide bombing every time they hear calls to prayer.

Not really, Palestinians frequently get cross the apartheid wall when they want to or need to. One of the best discriptions of the collander nature of this monstrosity can be found here:

[ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extreme-Rambling-Walking-Separation-Barrier/dp/0091927803]Extreme Rambling: Walking Israel's Separation Barrier. For Fun.: Amazon.co.uk: Mark Thomas: Books[/ame]

Author's intro:

[ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/mpd/permalink/m1PSRHOFSQWAGE/ref=ent_fb_link[/ame]

I remember one account where there was a building project on the Zionist Israeli side involving a tower crane with one of those huge buckets attached, the crane driver would often come to work early and lower his bucket (big enough to accommodate three people) on the Palestinian side of the wall and ferry Palestinians over the wall into Zionist Israel.

The wall was never built for "security reasons" it is one huge attempt at further land grabs by the Zionists.

The issue with checkpoints is well argued in the film, why not just hold your nose and watch it, you may even learn something.

 

[docmauser1]

I remember one account where there was a building project on the Zionist Israeli side involving a tower crane with one of those huge buckets attached, the crane driver would often come to work early and lower his bucket (big enough to accommodate three people) on the Palestinian side of the wall and ferry Palestinians over the wall into Zionist Israel.

Don't they have jobs in non-zionist palistan?

 

[Mojo2]

I was having a discussion with a co-worker about the Israel/Palestinian situation. I was expressing my view that I fully support Israel and their recent ground operations etc that they are taking to protect themselves. I was surprised to some degree with the level of disagreement that I received. I feel like it is common sense that Israel has to take these measures.

Some of the points he made included the following:

• Israel declared war on Egypt in 1966 and took lands that had not been theirs previously.
• Does this sound familiar with their more recent annexation of Gaza, West Bank, and The Golan Heights?
• Israel has repeatedly made promises to withdraw from areas and then continued to occupy and settle them.
• He said that Israel's stance reminds him of traditional view that cowboys and Europe had the right to conquer because they believed they were right.
• Putin's view of the world is similar to Israel. He is right and can do what he wants and could care less about truth or facts.

Unfortunately, I am not educated enough to respond to these points. Where can I go to get educated on Israel and the past that is a good source that I can trust?

Thanks in advance.

MD

I watched this video more than a year ago but it is so good i want to re-visit it's treatment and facts.

Very good tutorial.

 

[Challenger]

I watched this video more than a year ago but it is so good i want to re-visit it's treatment and facts.

Very good tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krvCQbzPKiI

Serge Trifkovic: Serbian war criminal, anti-Semite and Islamophobe, banned from Canada.
Robert Spencer: Where to start? Basically this guy makes it up as he goes along. American Fascists, sorry Neo-Cons, love him.
Bat Ye'or: Ashamed to say I read her book, before it was so thouroughly debunked by real academics. Basically a Jewish-Egyptian who had some bad experiences with Muslims and spent the rest of her life trying to get her own back.
Walid Shoebat: Too funny to be taken seriously. A total fraud, but Christian Fundamentalists love him.

I managed 12 minutes of this Islamophobic drivel before I got bored. 12 minutes of my life I'll never get back! You want to waste over an hour of your life, feel free, I've better things to do.

 

[docmauser1]

I managed 12 minutes of this Islamophobic drivel before I got bored. 12 minutes of my life I'll never get back! You want to waste over an hour of your life, feel free, I've better things to do.

Like getting those 12 minutes back by watching some judeophobic drivel?

 

[aris2chat]

I managed 12 minutes of this Islamophobic drivel before I got bored. 12 minutes of my life I'll never get back! You want to waste over an hour of your life, feel free, I've better things to do.

We waste time reading drivel about how evil Israel and how hamas/arab/muslims are so moral and peaceful, while we see in the news the violence, devistation and brutality they commit in the name of Allah.

If the time conscious, you can listen to the documentary on one open tab while doing other things on the computer. If you need you can switch tabs and replay anything you want. You can start and stop it when other things in the home, office, etc., need to be dealt with. Multitask.

 

[Challenger]

I managed 12 minutes of this Islamophobic drivel before I got bored. 12 minutes of my life I'll never get back! You want to waste over an hour of your life, feel free, I've better things to do.

We waste time reading drivel about how evil Israel and how hamas/arab/muslims are so moral and peaceful, while we see in the news the violence, devistation and brutality they commit in the name of Allah.

If the time conscious, you can listen to the documentary on one open tab while doing other things on the computer. If you need you can switch tabs and replay anything you want. You can start and stop it when other things in the home, office, etc., need to be dealt with. Multitask.

You know, I don't recall ever posting anything about "...how hamas/arab/muslims are so moral and peaceful..." they are, in fact, like the rest of humanity; deeply flawed with both good and evil present in everyone. They are in fact, human beings, not "animals" like some posters here seem to believe. Nor do they have a monopoly on religious or political fundamentalism or extremism.

Thank you for the lesson on multitasking, but I think I'll pass. Experience has shown me if you "multi-task" you get nothing finished and often overlook important details or information which tends to screw up your day. I think the saying "jack of all trades; master of none" is appropriate.

 

[docmauser1]

... they are, in fact, like the rest of humanity; deeply flawed with both good and evil present in everyone. They are in fact, human beings, not "animals" like some posters here seem to believe. Nor do they have a monopoly on religious or political fundamentalism or extremism. ...

The religion of relativism, that is?