"It is not a war. It is murder."

[ForeverYoung436]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

That is not true. The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention Palestine.

It does not mention Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq either, doofus, what is your point?

That you're lying when you say that that Treaty ceded land to a "country," which is not mentioned at all in the document that you cite.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence that those being attacked by Muslim animals do not have a right to retaliate or defend themselves. This is textbook Islamist mentality that can be seen in groups like ISIS and Hamas.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

So Palestine was a country on what date?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

 

[Shusha]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

That is not true. The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention Palestine.

It does not mention Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq either, doofus, what is your point?

Actually, the Treaty is worded to establish the extent of the territory under Turkey's sovereignty. To do this it:

1. Outlines the land borders between Turkey and the adjacent nations: Bulgaria, Greece, Persia, Syria, Iraq. Syria and Iraq are mentioned specifically. The border between Syria and Turkey was to be drawn according to the Franco-Turkish agreement of 1921 and the border between Iraq and Turkey to be determined by joint decision between Turkey and Great Britain with dispute resolution, if necessary, from the League of Nations. (Articles 2 and 3).

2. Outlines which territories remain under Turkish sovereignty, such as islands less than three miles from its coast and exceptions and the islands of Imbros and Tenedos. (Articles 12 and 14).

3. Outlines territories which the Turkey renounces.

ARTICLE 15.

Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo.

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.



The Ottomans did not cede land TO anyone except where specifically noted in the treaty (see section in red above), the Ottomans simply renounced all claims to that territory (see section in green above).

It is an error to claim that the Ottoman Empire ceded territory TO Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

So Palestine was a country on what date?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

Translation: He can't answer that question because he knows its bullsh*t.

 

[Shusha]

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

So, again. What is the objective criteria for an act to be called an "attack"? Is the presence of people of a certain ethnic background on a territory an "attack"? Under what circumstances? Is it an attack which justifies or creates a permission for the other to defend? Under what circumstances?

Create an objective set of criteria here.

 

[Shusha]

It is an error to claim that the Ottoman Empire ceded territory TO Palestine.

Let me rephrase that: It is a deliberate falsification to claim that the Ottoman Empire ceded territory TO Palestine.

 

[harmonica]

Israel has shown tremendous restraint in not shoving the Palestinians into the sea
can you Imagine Mexicans raiding the US border? killing children/civilians--time after time?..firing rockets into the US?
what country should take that crap?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

So, again. What is the objective criteria for an act to be called an "attack"? Is the presence of people of a certain ethnic background on a territory an "attack"? Under what circumstances? Is it an attack which justifies or creates a permission for the other to defend? Under what circumstances?

Create an objective set of criteria here.

Would you like me to create a list of things that you should already know?

 

[Indeependent]

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

So, again. What is the objective criteria for an act to be called an "attack"? Is the presence of people of a certain ethnic background on a territory an "attack"? Under what circumstances? Is it an attack which justifies or creates a permission for the other to defend? Under what circumstances?

Create an objective set of criteria here.

Would you like me to create a list of things that you should already know?

From ArabBullshit.org?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

So Palestine was a country on what date?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

I'll await your proof that Palestine was a country and that Turkey ceded land to said country.

Don't dilly dally now.

 

[Shusha]

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

So, again. What is the objective criteria for an act to be called an "attack"? Is the presence of people of a certain ethnic background on a territory an "attack"? Under what circumstances? Is it an attack which justifies or creates a permission for the other to defend? Under what circumstances?

Create an objective set of criteria here.

Would you like me to create a list of things that you should already know?

Oh, yes, please.

Why don't you start with your usual claim that it is morally and legally permissible to kill Jewish children because every person of Jewish ethnicity is a valid military target.

 

[Hollie]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence that those being attacked by Muslim animals do not have a right to retaliate or defend themselves. This is textbook Islamist mentality that can be seen in groups like ISIS and Hamas.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

You need to understand that the rockets fired by Hamas and the other Islamic terrorist franchises are attacks aimed at Israel. I’m not sure how you missed that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

So, again. What is the objective criteria for an act to be called an "attack"? Is the presence of people of a certain ethnic background on a territory an "attack"? Under what circumstances? Is it an attack which justifies or creates a permission for the other to defend? Under what circumstances?

Create an objective set of criteria here.

Would you like me to create a list of things that you should already know?

Oh, yes, please.

Why don't you start with your usual claim that it is morally and legally permissible to kill Jewish children because every person of Jewish ethnicity is a valid military target.

Deflection. That does not address the question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence that those being attacked by Muslim animals do not have a right to retaliate or defend themselves. This is textbook Islamist mentality that can be seen in groups like ISIS and Hamas.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

You need to understand that the rockets fired by Hamas and the other Islamic terrorist franchises are attacks aimed at Israel. I’m not sure how you missed that.

Those rockets never crossed a border into Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

So Palestine was a country on what date?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

I'll await your proof that Palestine was a country and that Turkey ceded land to said country.

Don't dilly dally now.

You won't believe me. Look it up for yourself.

 

[Shusha]

Those rockets never crossed a border into Israel.

Lol. Israel doesn't exist so its impossible to attack it.

The objective criteria is that attacks which do not cross international borders do not qualify as attacks and are therefore legally permissible?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

So Palestine was a country on what date?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

I'll await your proof that Palestine was a country and that Turkey ceded land to said country.

Don't dilly dally now.

You won't believe me. Look it up for yourself.

I looked, didn't see any proof.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those rockets never crossed a border into Israel.

Lol. Israel doesn't exist so its impossible to attack it.

The objective criteria is that attacks which do not cross international borders do not qualify as attacks and are therefore legally permissible?

In that case, Israel is free to strike back, just an internal police matter.

 

[teddyearp]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Yes indeed. Your (ventura) propaganda signature is unmistakable indeed. Right out of the electronic intifada playbook indeed.