Inventing history

[irosie91]

again dreyfuss-----you are engaging is absurd sophisty. agreements broken are broken You cannot put them back together by claiming---"but you signed-----it does not matter what I did.....no matter how impossible I have made it ___YOU MUST DO IT"

What a novel legal precedent, but certainly you can de-mystify the select language by adding: Israel reserves the right to abrogate any document it signs"...dare we examine the precedents here? This is not complex stuff, as a pre-condition of acceptance in the UN Israel signed the UN charter, this signature equates to a legal obligation to abide by the dictates of the Charter...something Israel has yet to satisfy

your point being that any nation that does not completely abide by DICTATES OF THE CHARTER ----must be expelled from the UN -----I AM ALL FOR IT

 

[docmauser1]

We are obviously laboring under different definitions of law: for either resolution to carry legal authority the language of the UN charter would require dramatic revisions--or complete abandonment. To argue over the pretense of legal weight in this respect is pure folly...within the organization the dictates of the charter cannot remain at odds with resolutions that are drafter under its authority...there is no meaneuverability on this specific issue...the legal grounds for a contractual committment between the UN and Israel are not satisfied---in fact just the opposite...recognition of Israel came about through applications of western political pressure...from a legal point of view it is pure farce...

Whatevah.

 

[DreyfussRan]

again dreyfuss-----you are engaging is absurd sophisty. agreements broken are broken You cannot put them back together by claiming---"but you signed-----it does not matter what I did.....no matter how impossible I have made it ___YOU MUST DO IT"

What a novel legal precedent, but certainly you can de-mystify the select language by adding: Israel reserves the right to abrogate any document it signs"...dare we examine the precedents here? This is not complex stuff, as a pre-condition of acceptance in the UN Israel signed the UN charter, this signature equates to a legal obligation to abide by the dictates of the Charter...something Israel has yet to satisfy

your point being that any nation that does not completely abide by DICTATES OF THE CHARTER ----must be expelled from the UN -----I AM ALL FOR IT

You're contradicting yourself here irose...but let's adopt your thinking here: Israel is summarily expelled for failing to comply with decades of GA and SC resolutions, and for gross, and consistent violations of its legal obligation to honor the UN charter...Israel is a rogue state in or out of the UN...its criminal actions have never been tempered or moderated by its obligations to abide by the charter, yet curiously enough you switch the emphasis to the Arab states...please permit us a history of violations that even compete with those of the fabled Jewish state...I'll wait

 

[irosie91]

wrong again Dreyfuss YOU stated that resolutions are NON BINDING-----and you concentrated on the DETAILS OF THE CHARTER You engaged in a bit of sophistry in which you decided that resolutions which are non binding magically became binding upon Israel only------and that is about it. And now we are back to resolutions again

 

[SAYIT]

The reason you are a complete idiot is because you claim that if someone hates Jews then it negates any veracity in their post.

Indeed it does, Princess, for those of us who do not live and breath that hate.

Can you possibly be so blind to your own vitriol? Kindly pour over some of your signature comments and dare to excuse them as being void "of hate"...your thinking---if that's even the correct word---is poisoned with the irrationality of blind hate against any rendering of facts...you clearly dislike unwlecome facts, your desperate little brain can't process them against the spate of juvenile lies and distortions that characterize your position...your every syllable is saturated with disgust and condemnation for the truth. I simply cannot imagine holding such a position, and suffering the psychic and moral damage it entails, if only becasue on some nagging peripheral level you lie to yourself with the same artless glee with which you lie to others...you and irose---and in fact---the entire nest of Zionist parrots are sub-intellectual drones...ideas---and the broader dimensions they entail---frighten you, and you attack them like dispirited children whose fatasy life has been threatened...

My alleged vitriol, as perceived by a well established Nazi skank, is not the issue here, Princess, but yours certainly is as is your dishonest nature and cowardice.

 

[DreyfussRan]

wrong again Dreyfuss YOU stated that resolutions are NON BINDING-----and you concentrated on the DETAILS OF THE CHARTER You engaged in a bit of sophistry in which you decided that resolutions which are non binding magically became binding upon Israel only------and that is about it. And now we are back to resolutions again

Wow!!! It requires considerable mental-blocking to miss the point repeatedly...where do I assert that these resolutions are "binding"? What is binding---at least rhetorically---is the precise letter of the UN charter...and Israel's signature on the Charter...shall I break this down and simplify it to the point where even a child with Down's-syndrome could comprehend it? Your convoluted, bizzare, and mindlessly vacillating argument embodies the preverse logic of Zionism...please continue posting as you are the most concentrated exemplar for the circular values of Zionism

 

[irosie91]

go right ahead----you told me that Israel violated the details of the UN charter-----ok I never read the UN charter-----what detail did it violate? Then you mentioned one of the resolutions---that I believe preceded the war of 1948---generally that part of the conflict that followed the induction of Israel into the UN OK that part I got------now can you paraphrase the detail of the UN charter that Israel violated of course I could have googled----but I did not

 

[DreyfussRan]

go right ahead----you told me that Israel violated the details of the UN charter-----ok I never read the UN charter-----what detail did it violate? Then you mentioned one of the resolutions---that I believe preceded the war of 1948---generally that part of the conflict that followed the induction of Israel into the UN OK that part I got------now can you paraphrase the detail of the UN charter that Israel violated of course I could have googled----but I did not

Madam please give me several moments to wrap my mind around such bizarre and convoluted thinking as you evidence here: if you've never read the UN charter---easily accessible online---how in heaven's name can you possibly propose an argument with any minor force that involves the charter?...the central pillar of the UN charter is sworn to protect the residency rights of native population against colonial annexation...does that seem clear enough to you? Secondly there was no such event as the "war of 1948" or other creative references like "Israel's war for independence"....what there was amounted to a brazen and well-organized illegal seizure of Palestine by force of arms...apparently history is not a Zionist strong-point

 

[irosie91]

go right ahead----you told me that Israel violated the details of the UN charter-----ok I never read the UN charter-----what detail did it violate? Then you mentioned one of the resolutions---that I believe preceded the war of 1948---generally that part of the conflict that followed the induction of Israel into the UN OK that part I got------now can you paraphrase the detail of the UN charter that Israel violated of course I could have googled----but I did not

Madam please give me several moments to wrap my mind around such bizarre and convoluted thinking as you evidence here: if you've never read the UN charter---easily accessible online---how in heaven's name can you possibly propose an argument with any minor force that involves the charter?...the central pillar of the UN charter is sworn to protect the residency rights of native population against colonial annexation...does that seem clear enough to you? Secondly there was no such event as the "war of 1948" or other creative references like "Israel's war for independence"....what there was amounted to a brazen and well-organized illegal seizure of Palestine by force of arms...apparently history is not a Zionist strong-point

what an interesting description of a war involving a people seeking to survive the genocides that so delight you. by your definition the struggle to create a country out of SOUTH SUDAN for mostly non muslims is THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND Bali is another theft and if "god forbid" the Biafrans had survived and won their freedom from an ongoing genocide-----they would be land thieves too. Did you know that in islamic law----non muslims are not actually PART of the muslim country in which they live-----they are considered a separate and vanquished nation-----living as a tributory nation WITHIN the territory of muslim land which is why--in general non muslims are barred from OWNING LAND That is the basis of the PACT OF OMAR Since you seem to like the legalistic approach------you can consider the jews living in palestine AND in other "muslim lands" the illegally imprisoned nation of jews who fought for and won freedom. The part they won is called ISRAEL See? once you know a bit about islamic law------it does work Just consider the ENTIRE MIDDLE east as one islamic entity----which BTW is precisely what the ARAB SPRING is all about And precisely what the 1967 war was all about ASK NASSER ---in fact you can even ask Saddam ARAB NATIONALISM, AKA BAATHIST PARTY, AKA ARAB SPRING, AKA UAR (united arab republic) are all euphemism for CALIPHATE Now keep in mind----the OTTOMAN EMPIRE was a CALIPHATE are you going to deny the entire concept of caliphate for the few short years that palestine was NOT PART OF THE CALIPHATE? BTW by your definition----and by the definition of lots of pakistanis and indian muslims I have encountered------the establishment of India in 1948 was ALSO THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND

 

[Hossfly]

Dreyfuss could you please give us some examples of REJECTED TRUTH as you have accused several people of "rejecting truth" including me. For a college professor---your style of writing is remarkably flamboyant and imprecise.

Not only is our perfesser flamboyant and imprecise, he cain't spel either. In post #24 he mispelled 5 words in a short paragraph. I am not being a spelling policeman, only showing that this re-incarnated Einstein is too impatient to be accurate.Like:
pour (for pore)
becasue
unwlecome
your every syllable
fatasy

C'mon prof, give us a break. And if Dreyfuss ran, Who is Dreyfuss? Edumacate us. Please?

 

[DreyfussRan]

go right ahead----you told me that Israel violated the details of the UN charter-----ok I never read the UN charter-----what detail did it violate? Then you mentioned one of the resolutions---that I believe preceded the war of 1948---generally that part of the conflict that followed the induction of Israel into the UN OK that part I got------now can you paraphrase the detail of the UN charter that Israel violated of course I could have googled----but I did not

Madam please give me several moments to wrap my mind around such bizarre and convoluted thinking as you evidence here: if you've never read the UN charter---easily accessible online---how in heaven's name can you possibly propose an argument with any minor force that involves the charter?...the central pillar of the UN charter is sworn to protect the residency rights of native population against colonial annexation...does that seem clear enough to you? Secondly there was no such event as the "war of 1948" or other creative references like "Israel's war for independence"....what there was amounted to a brazen and well-organized illegal seizure of Palestine by force of arms...apparently history is not a Zionist strong-point

what an interesting description of a war involving a people seeking to survive the genocides that so delight you. by your definition the struggle to create a country out of SOUTH SUDAN for mostly non muslims is THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND Bali is another theft and if "god forbid" the Biafrans had survived and won their freedom from an ongoing genocide-----they would be land thieves too. Did you know that in islamic law----non muslims are not actually PART of the muslim country in which they live-----they are considered a separate and vanquished nation-----living as a tributory nation WITHIN the territory of muslim land which is why--in general non muslims are barred from OWNING LAND That is the basis of the PACT OF OMAR Since you seem to like the legalistic approach------you can consider the jews living in palestine AND in other "muslim lands" the illegally imprisoned nation of jews who fought for and won freedom. The part they won is called ISRAEL See? once you know a bit about islamic law------it does work Just consider the ENTIRE MIDDLE east as one islamic entity----which BTW is precisely what the ARAB SPRING is all about And precisely what the 1967 war was all about ASK NASSER ---in fact you can even ask Saddam ARAB NATIONALISM, AKA BAATHIST PARTY, AKA ARAB SPRING, AKA UAR (united arab republic) are all euphemism for CALIPHATE Now keep in mind----the OTTOMAN EMPIRE was a CALIPHATE are you going to deny the entire concept of caliphate for the few short years that palestine was NOT PART OF THE CALIPHATE? BTW by your definition----and by the definition of lots of pakistanis and indian muslims I have encountered------the establishment of India in 1948 was ALSO THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND

Kindly do not invoke the Holocaust to me Madam---I am Jewish and I have relatives on both my side, and my wife's side of the family who perished in this event...I can only lament your brittle, and resourcefully belligerent ignorance with regard to a "war of 48"...I suspect that you are not educated enough to plumb for the relevant facts, so please indulge me: Zionist talking-points sound something like this---"the Jews accepted res 181, the arabs rejected a state, and this is the starting point in the conflict". The Zionists simply entertained the motions of a 181 vote---knowing full-well that the Arab states---and India---would summarily reject the recommendation as absurdly unjust to the majority popualtion of Palestine....anticipating this vote-down the Zionist terror groups---Stern Gang...Irgun...etc---initiated a well-organized terror offensive and took the territory by force, grabbing as much land as they could lay their hands on. Even Jewish witnesses to this--such as Mosche Dayan---expressed shock at the magnitude of the theft. The so-called Arab armies intervened days after this offensive began, and lacked the numerical and military resouces to drive the Zionist forces out. As for the 67 land-grab, here yet again we can rely on the voices of leading Zionists to explain the strategy: Begin...Weitzman, and Dayan all agree that Israel deliberately intitated the event for purposes of expansion. I wonder why it is impossible for you to limit your analysis to the Jews...you freight in inapplicable---and irrational---charges against "Caliphates" and indistinct Muslim nations. Try to focus your vastly imperfect brain on one immutable point: Arab Palestinians resided in vast majority on these lands for 13 centuries...an absentee land claim spanning 13 centuries is indeed a unique claim...some might even venture to call it insane

 

[SAYIT]

Madam please give me several moments to wrap my mind around such bizarre and convoluted thinking as you evidence here: if you've never read the UN charter---easily accessible online---how in heaven's name can you possibly propose an argument with any minor force that involves the charter?...the central pillar of the UN charter is sworn to protect the residency rights of native population against colonial annexation...does that seem clear enough to you? Secondly there was no such event as the "war of 1948" or other creative references like "Israel's war for independence"....what there was amounted to a brazen and well-organized illegal seizure of Palestine by force of arms...apparently history is not a Zionist strong-point

what an interesting description of a war involving a people seeking to survive the genocides that so delight you. by your definition the struggle to create a country out of SOUTH SUDAN for mostly non muslims is THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND Bali is another theft and if "god forbid" the Biafrans had survived and won their freedom from an ongoing genocide-----they would be land thieves too. Did you know that in islamic law----non muslims are not actually PART of the muslim country in which they live-----they are considered a separate and vanquished nation-----living as a tributory nation WITHIN the territory of muslim land which is why--in general non muslims are barred from OWNING LAND That is the basis of the PACT OF OMAR Since you seem to like the legalistic approach------you can consider the jews living in palestine AND in other "muslim lands" the illegally imprisoned nation of jews who fought for and won freedom. The part they won is called ISRAEL See? once you know a bit about islamic law------it does work Just consider the ENTIRE MIDDLE east as one islamic entity----which BTW is precisely what the ARAB SPRING is all about And precisely what the 1967 war was all about ASK NASSER ---in fact you can even ask Saddam ARAB NATIONALISM, AKA BAATHIST PARTY, AKA ARAB SPRING, AKA UAR (united arab republic) are all euphemism for CALIPHATE Now keep in mind----the OTTOMAN EMPIRE was a CALIPHATE are you going to deny the entire concept of caliphate for the few short years that palestine was NOT PART OF THE CALIPHATE? BTW by your definition----and by the definition of lots of pakistanis and indian muslims I have encountered------the establishment of India in 1948 was ALSO THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND

Kindly do not invoke the Holocaust to me Madam---I am Jewish and I have relatives on both my side, and my wife's side of the family who perished in this event...I can only lament your brittle, and resourcefully belligerent ignorance with regard to a "war of 48"...I suspect that you are not educated enough to plumb for the relevant facts, so please indulge me: Zionist talking-points sound something like this---"the Jews accepted res 181, the arabs rejected a state, and this is the starting point in the conflict". The Zionists simply entertained the motions of a 181 vote---knowing full-well that the Arab states---and India---would summarily reject the recommendation as absurdly unjust to the majority popualtion of Palestine....anticipating this vote-down the Zionist terror groups---Stern Gang...Irgun...etc---initiated a well-organized terror offensive and took the territory by force, grabbing as much land as they could lay their hands on. Even Jewish witnesses to this--such as Mosche Dayan---expressed shock at the magnitude of the theft. The so-called Arab armies intervened days after this offensive began, and lacked the numerical and military resouces to drive the Zionist forces out. As for the 67 land-grab, here yet again we can rely on the voices of leading Zionists to explain the strategy: Begin...Weitzman, and Dayan all agree that Israel deliberately intitated the event for purposes of expansion. I wonder why it is impossible for you to limit your analysis to the Jews...you freight in inapplicable---and irrational---charges against "Caliphates" and indistinct Muslim nations. Try to focus your vastly imperfect brain on one immutable point: Arab Palestinians resided in vast majority on these lands for 13 centuries...an absentee land claim spanning 13 centuries is indeed a unique claim...some might even venture to call it insane

For one who now claims to be Jewish and related to victims of the Holocaust you seem to have swallowed the "Palestinian" narrative whole. As we both know, many of those historical quotes are bogus fabrications by people with agendas other than truth or facts.

 

[Hossfly]

We don't Discuss Other Message Boards here, or Their Content.

I was responding to message #8 in this thread which refers to something the author read at something called "the clean zone." You removed my response but not the original post.

Sayit, that was Seal in post #9 who mentioned that other message board. I hope Zeus in Mt Olympus doesn't strike him dead for that unpardonable sin. Seal is a good ol' boy. I don't know what that is all about. And I don't want to know. And is there a punishment for even mentioning "message board" on this message board? Or will the Hammer of Thor deliver a wrist slapping? It's scary here, not knowing when you're sinning and the Great Spirit of Censor smites you with a death blow. Jeez!

 

[irosie91]

Dreyfus your style and propaganda is familiar to me because I have relatives who lived thru it in MUSLIM LANDS thru the 1930s and 40s I was born in the USA to american born parents----secular-----but before I attained my relatives thru marriage who got the nazi propaganda in muslim lands- I read it in english when I was so young that I did not even know where EGYPT AND SYRIA were-----but the propaganda was from those countries-----and POST WORLD WAR II Later on ---I heard it from muslims in the course of my work -----interestingly enough-----the propaganda you tout was elaborated escape nazi war criminals ------who found refuge in Syria and Egypt and a JOB----to wit WRITING PROPAGANDA which became---interestingly enough ----part of the school curriculum in PAKISATAN and among the MUSLIMS of India who could quote it chapter and verse In sum----I am not at all impressed that you can quote nazi propaganda ---written post war by nazi war criminals in Egypt and Syria.

 

[irosie91]

He is quoting the stuff written by nazi war criminals in egypt and syria they needed a job-----maybe he needs one now

 

[Hossfly]

Madam please give me several moments to wrap my mind around such bizarre and convoluted thinking as you evidence here: if you've never read the UN charter---easily accessible online---how in heaven's name can you possibly propose an argument with any minor force that involves the charter?...the central pillar of the UN charter is sworn to protect the residency rights of native population against colonial annexation...does that seem clear enough to you? Secondly there was no such event as the "war of 1948" or other creative references like "Israel's war for independence"....what there was amounted to a brazen and well-organized illegal seizure of Palestine by force of arms...apparently history is not a Zionist strong-point

what an interesting description of a war involving a people seeking to survive the genocides that so delight you. by your definition the struggle to create a country out of SOUTH SUDAN for mostly non muslims is THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND Bali is another theft and if "god forbid" the Biafrans had survived and won their freedom from an ongoing genocide-----they would be land thieves too. Did you know that in islamic law----non muslims are not actually PART of the muslim country in which they live-----they are considered a separate and vanquished nation-----living as a tributory nation WITHIN the territory of muslim land which is why--in general non muslims are barred from OWNING LAND That is the basis of the PACT OF OMAR Since you seem to like the legalistic approach------you can consider the jews living in palestine AND in other "muslim lands" the illegally imprisoned nation of jews who fought for and won freedom. The part they won is called ISRAEL See? once you know a bit about islamic law------it does work Just consider the ENTIRE MIDDLE east as one islamic entity----which BTW is precisely what the ARAB SPRING is all about And precisely what the 1967 war was all about ASK NASSER ---in fact you can even ask Saddam ARAB NATIONALISM, AKA BAATHIST PARTY, AKA ARAB SPRING, AKA UAR (united arab republic) are all euphemism for CALIPHATE Now keep in mind----the OTTOMAN EMPIRE was a CALIPHATE are you going to deny the entire concept of caliphate for the few short years that palestine was NOT PART OF THE CALIPHATE? BTW by your definition----and by the definition of lots of pakistanis and indian muslims I have encountered------the establishment of India in 1948 was ALSO THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND

Kindly do not invoke the Holocaust to me Madam---I am Jewish and I have relatives on both my side, and my wife's side of the family who perished in this event...I can only lament your brittle, and resourcefully belligerent ignorance with regard to a "war of 48"...I suspect that you are not educated enough to plumb for the relevant facts, so please indulge me: Zionist talking-points sound something like this---"the Jews accepted res 181, the arabs rejected a state, and this is the starting point in the conflict". The Zionists simply entertained the motions of a 181 vote---knowing full-well that the Arab states---and India---would summarily reject the recommendation as absurdly unjust to the majority popualtion of Palestine....anticipating this vote-down the Zionist terror groups---Stern Gang...Irgun...etc---initiated a well-organized terror offensive and took the territory by force, grabbing as much land as they could lay their hands on. Even Jewish witnesses to this--such as Mosche Dayan---expressed shock at the magnitude of the theft. The so-called Arab armies intervened days after this offensive began, and lacked the numerical and military resouces to drive the Zionist forces out. As for the 67 land-grab, here yet again we can rely on the voices of leading Zionists to explain the strategy: Begin...Weitzman, and Dayan all agree that Israel deliberately intitated the event for purposes of expansion. I wonder why it is impossible for you to limit your analysis to the Jews...you freight in inapplicable---and irrational---charges against "Caliphates" and indistinct Muslim nations. Try to focus your vastly imperfect brain on one immutable point: Arab Palestinians resided in vast majority on these lands for 13 centuries...an absentee land claim spanning 13 centuries is indeed a unique claim...some might even venture to call it insane

Why all the palaver over a simple fact. God gave the Jews the land and that's a fact, Jack. Grin and bear it, Perfesser Moishe.

 

[SAYIT]

what an interesting description of a war involving a people seeking to survive the genocides that so delight you. by your definition the struggle to create a country out of SOUTH SUDAN for mostly non muslims is THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND Bali is another theft and if "god forbid" the Biafrans had survived and won their freedom from an ongoing genocide-----they would be land thieves too. Did you know that in islamic law----non muslims are not actually PART of the muslim country in which they live-----they are considered a separate and vanquished nation-----living as a tributory nation WITHIN the territory of muslim land which is why--in general non muslims are barred from OWNING LAND That is the basis of the PACT OF OMAR Since you seem to like the legalistic approach------you can consider the jews living in palestine AND in other "muslim lands" the illegally imprisoned nation of jews who fought for and won freedom. The part they won is called ISRAEL See? once you know a bit about islamic law------it does work Just consider the ENTIRE MIDDLE east as one islamic entity----which BTW is precisely what the ARAB SPRING is all about And precisely what the 1967 war was all about ASK NASSER ---in fact you can even ask Saddam ARAB NATIONALISM, AKA BAATHIST PARTY, AKA ARAB SPRING, AKA UAR (united arab republic) are all euphemism for CALIPHATE Now keep in mind----the OTTOMAN EMPIRE was a CALIPHATE are you going to deny the entire concept of caliphate for the few short years that palestine was NOT PART OF THE CALIPHATE? BTW by your definition----and by the definition of lots of pakistanis and indian muslims I have encountered------the establishment of India in 1948 was ALSO THEFT OF MUSLIM LAND

Kindly do not invoke the Holocaust to me Madam---I am Jewish and I have relatives on both my side, and my wife's side of the family who perished in this event...I can only lament your brittle, and resourcefully belligerent ignorance with regard to a "war of 48"...I suspect that you are not educated enough to plumb for the relevant facts, so please indulge me: Zionist talking-points sound something like this---"the Jews accepted res 181, the arabs rejected a state, and this is the starting point in the conflict". The Zionists simply entertained the motions of a 181 vote---knowing full-well that the Arab states---and India---would summarily reject the recommendation as absurdly unjust to the majority popualtion of Palestine....anticipating this vote-down the Zionist terror groups---Stern Gang...Irgun...etc---initiated a well-organized terror offensive and took the territory by force, grabbing as much land as they could lay their hands on. Even Jewish witnesses to this--such as Mosche Dayan---expressed shock at the magnitude of the theft. The so-called Arab armies intervened days after this offensive began, and lacked the numerical and military resouces to drive the Zionist forces out. As for the 67 land-grab, here yet again we can rely on the voices of leading Zionists to explain the strategy: Begin...Weitzman, and Dayan all agree that Israel deliberately intitated the event for purposes of expansion. I wonder why it is impossible for you to limit your analysis to the Jews...you freight in inapplicable---and irrational---charges against "Caliphates" and indistinct Muslim nations. Try to focus your vastly imperfect brain on one immutable point: Arab Palestinians resided in vast majority on these lands for 13 centuries...an absentee land claim spanning 13 centuries is indeed a unique claim...some might even venture to call it insane

Why all the palaver over a simple fact. God gave the Jews the land and that's a fact, Jack. Grin and bear it, Perfesser Moishe.

Woo.
So now he's Jewish with relatives who perished in the Holocaust. Of course, next he will insist there was no Holocaust. Quite the coincidence how Sundowner's last post was on 9/4 and an identically pompous, arrogant and verbose anti-Israel poster, claiming to be a newbie, joins on 9/5 picking up precisely where Sundowner left off a day earlier.

 

[Hossfly]

Kindly do not invoke the Holocaust to me Madam---I am Jewish and I have relatives on both my side, and my wife's side of the family who perished in this event...I can only lament your brittle, and resourcefully belligerent ignorance with regard to a "war of 48"...I suspect that you are not educated enough to plumb for the relevant facts, so please indulge me: Zionist talking-points sound something like this---"the Jews accepted res 181, the arabs rejected a state, and this is the starting point in the conflict". The Zionists simply entertained the motions of a 181 vote---knowing full-well that the Arab states---and India---would summarily reject the recommendation as absurdly unjust to the majority popualtion of Palestine....anticipating this vote-down the Zionist terror groups---Stern Gang...Irgun...etc---initiated a well-organized terror offensive and took the territory by force, grabbing as much land as they could lay their hands on. Even Jewish witnesses to this--such as Mosche Dayan---expressed shock at the magnitude of the theft. The so-called Arab armies intervened days after this offensive began, and lacked the numerical and military resouces to drive the Zionist forces out. As for the 67 land-grab, here yet again we can rely on the voices of leading Zionists to explain the strategy: Begin...Weitzman, and Dayan all agree that Israel deliberately intitated the event for purposes of expansion. I wonder why it is impossible for you to limit your analysis to the Jews...you freight in inapplicable---and irrational---charges against "Caliphates" and indistinct Muslim nations. Try to focus your vastly imperfect brain on one immutable point: Arab Palestinians resided in vast majority on these lands for 13 centuries...an absentee land claim spanning 13 centuries is indeed a unique claim...some might even venture to call it insane

Why all the palaver over a simple fact. God gave the Jews the land and that's a fact, Jack. Grin and bear it, Perfesser Moishe.

Woo.
So now he's Jewish with relatives who perished in the Holocaust. Of course, next he will insist there was no Holocaust. Quite the coincidence how Sundowner's last post was on 9/4 and an identically pompous, arrogant and verbose anti-Israel poster, claiming to be a newbie, joins on 9/5 picking up precisely where Sundowner left off a day earlier.

That Sunshine is one sly old boy.

 

[DreyfussRan]

Kindly do not invoke the Holocaust to me Madam---I am Jewish and I have relatives on both my side, and my wife's side of the family who perished in this event...I can only lament your brittle, and resourcefully belligerent ignorance with regard to a "war of 48"...I suspect that you are not educated enough to plumb for the relevant facts, so please indulge me: Zionist talking-points sound something like this---"the Jews accepted res 181, the arabs rejected a state, and this is the starting point in the conflict". The Zionists simply entertained the motions of a 181 vote---knowing full-well that the Arab states---and India---would summarily reject the recommendation as absurdly unjust to the majority popualtion of Palestine....anticipating this vote-down the Zionist terror groups---Stern Gang...Irgun...etc---initiated a well-organized terror offensive and took the territory by force, grabbing as much land as they could lay their hands on. Even Jewish witnesses to this--such as Mosche Dayan---expressed shock at the magnitude of the theft. The so-called Arab armies intervened days after this offensive began, and lacked the numerical and military resouces to drive the Zionist forces out. As for the 67 land-grab, here yet again we can rely on the voices of leading Zionists to explain the strategy: Begin...Weitzman, and Dayan all agree that Israel deliberately intitated the event for purposes of expansion. I wonder why it is impossible for you to limit your analysis to the Jews...you freight in inapplicable---and irrational---charges against "Caliphates" and indistinct Muslim nations. Try to focus your vastly imperfect brain on one immutable point: Arab Palestinians resided in vast majority on these lands for 13 centuries...an absentee land claim spanning 13 centuries is indeed a unique claim...some might even venture to call it insane

Why all the palaver over a simple fact. God gave the Jews the land and that's a fact, Jack. Grin and bear it, Perfesser Moishe.

Is that right? Okay, this is what you need to satisfy that rather dreamy assertion: first and foremost we must established "god" as a dynamic reality--as opposed to an endlessly maleable group fantasy...once you have satisfied the inescapable demand for proof of "god's" existence we can move on to the claim that he is---among other things---a realtor who made some creaky promises to Sephardic Jews many centuries back....once you clear this intimidating hurdle, we can progress to the mid-point of the twentieth century and ask god to explain how European Jews of the 20th century have any claim on these lands...

Woo.
So now he's Jewish with relatives who perished in the Holocaust. Of course, next he will insist there was no Holocaust. Quite the coincidence how Sundowner's last post was on 9/4 and an identically pompous, arrogant and verbose anti-Israel poster, claiming to be a newbie, joins on 9/5 picking up precisely where Sundowner left off a day earlier.

Sir --or Madam--I don't know you, we've never had an exchange on this venue or another one...so I am somewhat bewildered that you would question my ethnic identity--I'm not a religious Jew, or that I have family who were lost in this event...you are obviously a very brittle and combative individual, and although I'm inclined to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, I confess that first impressions are quite instructive in your particuclar case...

 

[irosie91]

He's an obvious fraud not that it matters that he is a fraud-----but he is a fraud ------he studied the output of nazi war criminals KNOWINGLY I read that stuff too-----but only because it was lying around the nazi town in which I lived I DID NOT SEEK IT OUT LIKE A DOG LOOKING FOR FRIENDS