Izrealis Snipers execute 4 young palestinians !

[P F Tinmore]

You can't even tell us who the so-called Palestinians are, dopey.

You are the Forum Dunce.

When are you going to get banned again? It was nice.

It was nice not having me correct you repeatedly, Forum Dunce.

You are the Forum Dunce.

You would have to be right first.

 

[Marc39]

When are you going to get banned again? It was nice.

It was nice not having me correct you repeatedly, Forum Dunce.

You are the Forum Dunce.

You would have to be right first.

I'm always right, Forum Dunce.

You are the Forum Dunce.

 

[Shorebreak]

I thought this thread was about snipers, my posts only concern snipers.

Why be bigot, you cannot state that all people who are jewish are bad.

Snipers are different breads, they are not assassins, they truly are the best of all people in the military, great moral values and perfect military records.

To make such bigoted statements is way off base in the regard to these fine young men

I didn't make a bigoted statement.

I will take your word, I don't understand your statement. I should read more of what you post before I rush to judgment, anyhow explain if you wish or not, no matter to me.

We may disagree on the issue, but I'll explain my position:

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

When a Palestinian reacts, they are labeled a terrorist and are given a "fail" by the western media.

My comment regarding North American Indians is a contrast of the claims made by Israeli Zionists, whom I categorize as a subset within Judaism, just as many in the White Supramacist movement are a subset within Christianity. If the zionists are correct in their assertion that there was no Palestine and that they have true and legitimate claim to all of the territories, then we should be listening very closely to the North American Indians who claim that there was no USA and that THEY have legitimate claim over this nation. We KNOW that to be true.

If we support Israeli policy towards Palestine, we cannot be intellectually or morally honest unless we commit to honoring the claims of North American indian groups who claim that they have a right to this nation. Either we are wrong in our perception that Israel holds the moral high ground, or we are wrong in our perception that the North American indians do not hold legitimate moral claim over US soil.

This consideration is not even on the radar of most people - who simply form opinions based on what they see or hear, rather than on full consideration of the circumstances. For those who HAVE considered the circumstances - and placed them in perspective using a relevant example such as North American Indians - having it both ways is the ultimate hypocrisy.

As far as the "only related to snipers" point, I'm talking about policy, not the acts of individuals who may or may not support the bigger picture.

 

[Marc39]

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

Must be hard to keep a straight face claiming 5 million Jews are ethnically cleansing 350 million Arabs, eh, dolt?

As for Israel stealing, invading, and engaging in "mass punishment", you're using buzzwords you don't even understand. Have some cookies and milk and you'll feel better, kid.

 

[Shorebreak]

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

Must be hard to keep a straight face claiming 5 million Jews are ethnically cleansing 350 million Arabs, eh, dolt?

As for Israel stealing, invading, and engaging in "mass punishment", you're using buzzwords you don't even understand. Have some cookies and milk and you'll feel better, kid.

I didn't say "Arabs". I said Palestinians. Why are you generalizing? Perhaps because you can't refute what the zionists are doing to the Palestinians? So you need to use large brush strokes to distort the situation?

Your bigotry is showing. The very fact that you would even question the land grabbing, the mass punishment, and other commonly reported, every day activities that are going on makes it very clear that you either have no clue, or you simply cannot stomach considering things at face value without spin, because they violate your chosen perception of reality.

 

[Marc39]

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

Must be hard to keep a straight face claiming 5 million Jews are ethnically cleansing 350 million Arabs, eh, dolt?

As for Israel stealing, invading, and engaging in "mass punishment", you're using buzzwords you don't even understand. Have some cookies and milk and you'll feel better, kid.

I didn't say "Arabs". I said Palestinians. Why are you generalizing? Perhaps because you can't refute what the zionists are doing to the Palestinians? So you need to use large brush strokes to distort the situation?

Your bigotry is showing. The very fact that you would even question the land grabbing, the mass punishment, and other commonly reported, every day activities that are going on makes it very clear that you either have no clue, or you simply cannot stomach considering things at face value without spin, because they violate your chosen perception of reality.

Palestinians ARE Arabs, kid. And, Arabs, including so-called Pallies, are undergoing a population explosion. I'm afraid you are demonstrating a total lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Go back to playing video games.

 

[mdn2000]

I didn't make a bigoted statement.

I will take your word, I don't understand your statement. I should read more of what you post before I rush to judgment, anyhow explain if you wish or not, no matter to me.

We may disagree on the issue, but I'll explain my position:

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

When a Palestinian reacts, they are labeled a terrorist and are given a "fail" by the western media.

My comment regarding North American Indians is a contrast of the claims made by Israeli Zionists, whom I categorize as a subset within Judaism, just as many in the White Supramacist movement are a subset within Christianity. If the zionists are correct in their assertion that there was no Palestine and that they have true and legitimate claim to all of the territories, then we should be listening very closely to the North American Indians who claim that there was no USA and that THEY have legitimate claim over this nation. We KNOW that to be true.

If we support Israeli policy towards Palestine, we cannot be intellectually or morally honest unless we commit to honoring the claims of North American indian groups who claim that they have a right to this nation. Either we are wrong in our perception that Israel holds the moral high ground, or we are wrong in our perception that the North American indians do not hold legitimate moral claim over US soil.

This consideration is not even on the radar of most people - who simply form opinions based on what they see or hear, rather than on full consideration of the circumstances. For those who HAVE considered the circumstances - and placed them in perspective using a relevant example such as North American Indians - having it both ways is the ultimate hypocrisy.

As far as the "only related to snipers" point, I'm talking about policy, not the acts of individuals who may or may not support the bigger picture.

I wish I could comment on this at this time but I cannot, I am not stating I disagree or your wrong, I can see you put much thought into your response, most likely took a bit of time, if not at this moment you must have thought this out, maybe now, maybe before, either way I think your post took a bit of thought and work, more than a five second response.

Hopefully you will read my other posts, not that all my posts are worthy of reading, some are simply flames, tit for tat, etc, that said I just spent a couple hours on a response to some questions, I include sources such as books I own.

hell, I can post it here as well not that what will follow has anything to do with what you just posted but for simplicity, so that if you check back here you dont have to go to another thread to see a bit of what I have learned. Hopefully this will help you understand my understanding and if you may you can provide insight from your perspective.

The biggest misconception is that the Arabs political leaders and the political movement in Palestine originated as a grass roots organization within Palestine to free Arabs from Jewish oppression.

The PLO as near as I can tell began in Egypt under Nasser, off the top of my head early 60's, Pan-Arab-ism was Nasser's idea, maybe not the first to originate this idea but Nasser definitely was a war-monger. Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo, not Palestine, hence the movement began outside of Israel/Palestine. From Egypt the PLO is next found in Jordan, short story the PLO went to war with Jordan, exiled from Jordan Arafat is next found......... eventually in Palestine.

Arafat was Egyptian, simply fighting for power, not for the people, the people were pawns used by men who seek easy power through murder and war.

Another whopper is that the Arabs had to flee from the Jews in 1947 when the war for independence began.

You might of misinterpreted my point I attempted to make. I do understand that the Arabs fled their homes out of fear and definitely in some cases that fear was justified. Many Arabs stayed and did not flee, these Arabs were protected by the Jews. More specifically Moshe Dayan speaks of this in his book, "Moshe Dayan, Story of my life" (if I quote a book, I own it and its in my hand).

From pg 82, shortly after the War of Independence begins.

A few days after this battle, Giora Zeid renewed his contact with the Druze and informed me that he thought it might be possible to neutralize them. A rendezvous was arranged for us with several officers of the Druze battalion at Tivon, in Lower Galilee. When I was presented to them as one whose brother had been killed in the Ramat Youhanna action, they went pale. They suspected a trap, thtat the meeting had been a stratagem to avenge the blood of Zorik. They were Arabs, and the blood feud was part of their custom and tradition. They assumed it was part of mine too. But I was a Jew and followed Jewish custom and tradition, in which the blood feud has no place. Moreover, Zorik's death was my private grief, and I kept it strictly apart from the purpose in which I was engaged. I had come on a political and military mission, to turn an enemy into a neutral or a friend. The Druze officers were soon reassured. At the end of our negotiations, they agreed tot take no further part in the war. Some even came over to our side and fought with us.

This is not the particular passage I hoped to find, I realize I need to take notes which I have just begun, a huge task given the books I have. So what is the point, A Jewish commander which buried any thoughts of revenge against Arabs who killed his younger brother in combat in order to secure peace. Not the actions of a man who supposedly drove out the Arab families. The book has much more than just this one incident that speaks of the character of Moshe Dayan.

This is also an example of the poor education we receive in the USA in regards to Israel, this is great example of the Media's bias. Here Moshe Dayan tells us Arabs fought with the Jews. Arabs fought on the side of the Jews, got it, Arabs fought on the side of Jews.

Maybe the biggest misconception is that Jews and Arabs cannot live together in peace.

Quoting Moshe Dayan speaks volumes in respect to my statement, this is just one example of many examples Moshe Dayan gives. This from a distinguished military commander of the Jewish army. Moshe Dayan lived side by side with Arabs, Arabs who are personal friends of his.

I have other books as well, many other books, many other examples.

Before I move on Moshe Dayan was born in Palestine.

How about something from Walter Clay Lowdermilk (great name) written in 1944, not tainted by today's bias and politics.

Palestine, Land of Promise

pg. 157

An interesting sidelight on the beneficial effect of jewish colonization on the Arab popultation is the extraordiary rate of increase of the arab community. ......

Arab infant mortality is rapidly declining in all of Palestine but it is lowest in the localities closest to Jewish settlements, whether urban or rural. The reduction in th the death rate is due inpart to the health work of the Palestine government but must be attributed mainly to the adctivities of the Jewish health agencies, among which Hadassah, the American Women's Zionist Organization, has played the outstanding part. Hadassah began its medical work during the
First World War and ever since then has maintained a large network of clinics and hospitals. Its preventive medical work has been largely responsible for the elimination of Trachoma, and contributed in great measure to the effective control of malaria........ While we were in Jerusalem, the magnificent structure of the Rothschild-Hadassah-University Hospital was opened on Mount Scopus. It is the most modern and best-staffed hospital in the Near East and attract patients from all the countries around Palestine.

Again but one book of many

Biggest misconception is how the Nation of Israel was reborn, when, how, and by whom.

My favorite topic or rant by far, I love this point. Let me take a break though, I have literally spent two hours on my simple response, much spent in Moshe Dayan's book, what a great book, Moshe Dayan's story literally brings tears to my eyes, especially when he talks of the lost of his brother and his friendship with Arabs. So I got caught up reading. I type well but have a tendency to misspell and spent a bit of time correcting my post so as not to be an easy target for the spell-checkers.

So that said and given what I post, does anyone doubt that I will not use Google or Wikipedia, that I am prepared to back up every statement I make with quotes from men that lived during the times we wish to understand, can anyone doubt that I have many sources at my finger tips. That if I state I can reference 75-100 books on the Middle East I do not speak of visiting a library, that these books are physically in my possession. That said I will get back to any point I have made and to anyone who wishes to question me.

Hey Marc39 (notice I have addressed you as you wish in a gesture of friendship) I am going to do you a great favor, get a copy of "The Revolt, Story of the Irgun" by Menachem Begin, I do not suggest this to educate you or change your opinion nor style of posting, I suggest this simply as a gesture and because I know you will love this factual account of a time in Israel's history

I dedicate all I write and all I post in regards to Palestine to Dov Gruner.

 

[mdn2000]

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

Must be hard to keep a straight face claiming 5 million Jews are ethnically cleansing 350 million Arabs, eh, dolt?

As for Israel stealing, invading, and engaging in "mass punishment", you're using buzzwords you don't even understand. Have some cookies and milk and you'll feel better, kid.

I didn't say "Arabs". I said Palestinians. Why are you generalizing? Perhaps because you can't refute what the zionists are doing to the Palestinians? So you need to use large brush strokes to distort the situation?

Your bigotry is showing. The very fact that you would even question the land grabbing, the mass punishment, and other commonly reported, every day activities that are going on makes it very clear that you either have no clue, or you simply cannot stomach considering things at face value without spin, because they violate your chosen perception of reality.

you should check what I post in regards to the member of USMB you just engaged

 

[Shorebreak]

I will take your word, I don't understand your statement. I should read more of what you post before I rush to judgment, anyhow explain if you wish or not, no matter to me.

We may disagree on the issue, but I'll explain my position:

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

When a Palestinian reacts, they are labeled a terrorist and are given a "fail" by the western media.

My comment regarding North American Indians is a contrast of the claims made by Israeli Zionists, whom I categorize as a subset within Judaism, just as many in the White Supramacist movement are a subset within Christianity. If the zionists are correct in their assertion that there was no Palestine and that they have true and legitimate claim to all of the territories, then we should be listening very closely to the North American Indians who claim that there was no USA and that THEY have legitimate claim over this nation. We KNOW that to be true.

If we support Israeli policy towards Palestine, we cannot be intellectually or morally honest unless we commit to honoring the claims of North American indian groups who claim that they have a right to this nation. Either we are wrong in our perception that Israel holds the moral high ground, or we are wrong in our perception that the North American indians do not hold legitimate moral claim over US soil.

This consideration is not even on the radar of most people - who simply form opinions based on what they see or hear, rather than on full consideration of the circumstances. For those who HAVE considered the circumstances - and placed them in perspective using a relevant example such as North American Indians - having it both ways is the ultimate hypocrisy.

As far as the "only related to snipers" point, I'm talking about policy, not the acts of individuals who may or may not support the bigger picture.

I wish I could comment on this at this time but I cannot, I am not stating I disagree or your wrong, I can see you put much thought into your response, most likely took a bit of time, if not at this moment you must have thought this out, maybe now, maybe before, either way I think your post took a bit of thought and work, more than a five second response.

Hopefully you will read my other posts, not that all my posts are worthy of reading, some are simply flames, tit for tat, etc, that said I just spent a couple hours on a response to some questions, I include sources such as books I own.

hell, I can post it here as well not that what will follow has anything to do with what you just posted but for simplicity, so that if you check back here you dont have to go to another thread to see a bit of what I have learned. Hopefully this will help you understand my understanding and if you may you can provide insight from your perspective.



The PLO as near as I can tell began in Egypt under Nasser, off the top of my head early 60's, Pan-Arab-ism was Nasser's idea, maybe not the first to originate this idea but Nasser definitely was a war-monger. Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo, not Palestine, hence the movement began outside of Israel/Palestine. From Egypt the PLO is next found in Jordan, short story the PLO went to war with Jordan, exiled from Jordan Arafat is next found......... eventually in Palestine.

Arafat was Egyptian, simply fighting for power, not for the people, the people were pawns used by men who seek easy power through murder and war.



You might of misinterpreted my point I attempted to make. I do understand that the Arabs fled their homes out of fear and definitely in some cases that fear was justified. Many Arabs stayed and did not flee, these Arabs were protected by the Jews. More specifically Moshe Dayan speaks of this in his book, "Moshe Dayan, Story of my life" (if I quote a book, I own it and its in my hand).

From pg 82, shortly after the War of Independence begins.



This is not the particular passage I hoped to find, I realize I need to take notes which I have just begun, a huge task given the books I have. So what is the point, A Jewish commander which buried any thoughts of revenge against Arabs who killed his younger brother in combat in order to secure peace. Not the actions of a man who supposedly drove out the Arab families. The book has much more than just this one incident that speaks of the character of Moshe Dayan.

This is also an example of the poor education we receive in the USA in regards to Israel, this is great example of the Media's bias. Here Moshe Dayan tells us Arabs fought with the Jews. Arabs fought on the side of the Jews, got it, Arabs fought on the side of Jews.



Quoting Moshe Dayan speaks volumes in respect to my statement, this is just one example of many examples Moshe Dayan gives. This from a distinguished military commander of the Jewish army. Moshe Dayan lived side by side with Arabs, Arabs who are personal friends of his.

I have other books as well, many other books, many other examples.

Before I move on Moshe Dayan was born in Palestine.

How about something from Walter Clay Lowdermilk (great name) written in 1944, not tainted by today's bias and politics.



pg. 157

An interesting sidelight on the beneficial effect of jewish colonization on the Arab popultation is the extraordiary rate of increase of the arab community. ......

Arab infant mortality is rapidly declining in all of Palestine but it is lowest in the localities closest to Jewish settlements, whether urban or rural. The reduction in th the death rate is due inpart to the health work of the Palestine government but must be attributed mainly to the adctivities of the Jewish health agencies, among which Hadassah, the American Women's Zionist Organization, has played the outstanding part. Hadassah began its medical work during the
First World War and ever since then has maintained a large network of clinics and hospitals. Its preventive medical work has been largely responsible for the elimination of Trachoma, and contributed in great measure to the effective control of malaria........ While we were in Jerusalem, the magnificent structure of the Rothschild-Hadassah-University Hospital was opened on Mount Scopus. It is the most modern and best-staffed hospital in the Near East and attract patients from all the countries around Palestine.

Again but one book of many

Biggest misconception is how the Nation of Israel was reborn, when, how, and by whom.

My favorite topic or rant by far, I love this point. Let me take a break though, I have literally spent two hours on my simple response, much spent in Moshe Dayan's book, what a great book, Moshe Dayan's story literally brings tears to my eyes, especially when he talks of the lost of his brother and his friendship with Arabs. So I got caught up reading. I type well but have a tendency to misspell and spent a bit of time correcting my post so as not to be an easy target for the spell-checkers.

So that said and given what I post, does anyone doubt that I will not use Google or Wikipedia, that I am prepared to back up every statement I make with quotes from men that lived during the times we wish to understand, can anyone doubt that I have many sources at my finger tips. That if I state I can reference 75-100 books on the Middle East I do not speak of visiting a library, that these books are physically in my possession. That said I will get back to any point I have made and to anyone who wishes to question me.

Hey Marc39 (notice I have addressed you as you wish in a gesture of friendship) I am going to do you a great favor, get a copy of "The Revolt, Story of the Irgun" by Menachem Begin, I do not suggest this to educate you or change your opinion nor style of posting, I suggest this simply as a gesture and because I know you will love this factual account of a time in Israel's history

I dedicate all I write and all I post in regards to Palestine to Dov Gruner.

Thanks for the excellent post. I can't elaborate on any of your points because of commitments i have today, but I read every bit of it. Something to keep in mind regarding Egypt, Cairo, and the PLO is that while israel is the #1 historical recipient of US foregin aid, Egypt is #2. Have you ever considered how Egypt funded the PLO and afforded to move Arafat into the picture? You can be certain that the folks who were sending our tax dollars to Egypt had those activities under very close scrutiny, while continuing to send our money.

The fact is that on the policy end, the US has been playing both sides of the fence, publicly promoting Israel while using foreign partners to fund and support the opposition. It's all in plain sight for anyone who wants to look at it - including israeli leadership who is a direct participant in maintaining this status.

 

[P F Tinmore]

We may disagree on the issue, but I'll explain my position:

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

When a Palestinian reacts, they are labeled a terrorist and are given a "fail" by the western media.

My comment regarding North American Indians is a contrast of the claims made by Israeli Zionists, whom I categorize as a subset within Judaism, just as many in the White Supramacist movement are a subset within Christianity. If the zionists are correct in their assertion that there was no Palestine and that they have true and legitimate claim to all of the territories, then we should be listening very closely to the North American Indians who claim that there was no USA and that THEY have legitimate claim over this nation. We KNOW that to be true.

If we support Israeli policy towards Palestine, we cannot be intellectually or morally honest unless we commit to honoring the claims of North American indian groups who claim that they have a right to this nation. Either we are wrong in our perception that Israel holds the moral high ground, or we are wrong in our perception that the North American indians do not hold legitimate moral claim over US soil.

This consideration is not even on the radar of most people - who simply form opinions based on what they see or hear, rather than on full consideration of the circumstances. For those who HAVE considered the circumstances - and placed them in perspective using a relevant example such as North American Indians - having it both ways is the ultimate hypocrisy.

As far as the "only related to snipers" point, I'm talking about policy, not the acts of individuals who may or may not support the bigger picture.

I wish I could comment on this at this time but I cannot, I am not stating I disagree or your wrong, I can see you put much thought into your response, most likely took a bit of time, if not at this moment you must have thought this out, maybe now, maybe before, either way I think your post took a bit of thought and work, more than a five second response.

Hopefully you will read my other posts, not that all my posts are worthy of reading, some are simply flames, tit for tat, etc, that said I just spent a couple hours on a response to some questions, I include sources such as books I own.

hell, I can post it here as well not that what will follow has anything to do with what you just posted but for simplicity, so that if you check back here you dont have to go to another thread to see a bit of what I have learned. Hopefully this will help you understand my understanding and if you may you can provide insight from your perspective.



The PLO as near as I can tell began in Egypt under Nasser, off the top of my head early 60's, Pan-Arab-ism was Nasser's idea, maybe not the first to originate this idea but Nasser definitely was a war-monger. Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo, not Palestine, hence the movement began outside of Israel/Palestine. From Egypt the PLO is next found in Jordan, short story the PLO went to war with Jordan, exiled from Jordan Arafat is next found......... eventually in Palestine.

Arafat was Egyptian, simply fighting for power, not for the people, the people were pawns used by men who seek easy power through murder and war.



You might of misinterpreted my point I attempted to make. I do understand that the Arabs fled their homes out of fear and definitely in some cases that fear was justified. Many Arabs stayed and did not flee, these Arabs were protected by the Jews. More specifically Moshe Dayan speaks of this in his book, "Moshe Dayan, Story of my life" (if I quote a book, I own it and its in my hand).

From pg 82, shortly after the War of Independence begins.



This is not the particular passage I hoped to find, I realize I need to take notes which I have just begun, a huge task given the books I have. So what is the point, A Jewish commander which buried any thoughts of revenge against Arabs who killed his younger brother in combat in order to secure peace. Not the actions of a man who supposedly drove out the Arab families. The book has much more than just this one incident that speaks of the character of Moshe Dayan.

This is also an example of the poor education we receive in the USA in regards to Israel, this is great example of the Media's bias. Here Moshe Dayan tells us Arabs fought with the Jews. Arabs fought on the side of the Jews, got it, Arabs fought on the side of Jews.



Quoting Moshe Dayan speaks volumes in respect to my statement, this is just one example of many examples Moshe Dayan gives. This from a distinguished military commander of the Jewish army. Moshe Dayan lived side by side with Arabs, Arabs who are personal friends of his.

I have other books as well, many other books, many other examples.

Before I move on Moshe Dayan was born in Palestine.

How about something from Walter Clay Lowdermilk (great name) written in 1944, not tainted by today's bias and politics.



pg. 157



Again but one book of many

Biggest misconception is how the Nation of Israel was reborn, when, how, and by whom.

My favorite topic or rant by far, I love this point. Let me take a break though, I have literally spent two hours on my simple response, much spent in Moshe Dayan's book, what a great book, Moshe Dayan's story literally brings tears to my eyes, especially when he talks of the lost of his brother and his friendship with Arabs. So I got caught up reading. I type well but have a tendency to misspell and spent a bit of time correcting my post so as not to be an easy target for the spell-checkers.

So that said and given what I post, does anyone doubt that I will not use Google or Wikipedia, that I am prepared to back up every statement I make with quotes from men that lived during the times we wish to understand, can anyone doubt that I have many sources at my finger tips. That if I state I can reference 75-100 books on the Middle East I do not speak of visiting a library, that these books are physically in my possession. That said I will get back to any point I have made and to anyone who wishes to question me.

Hey Marc39 (notice I have addressed you as you wish in a gesture of friendship) I am going to do you a great favor, get a copy of "The Revolt, Story of the Irgun" by Menachem Begin, I do not suggest this to educate you or change your opinion nor style of posting, I suggest this simply as a gesture and because I know you will love this factual account of a time in Israel's history

I dedicate all I write and all I post in regards to Palestine to Dov Gruner.

Thanks for the excellent post. I can't elaborate on any of your points because of commitments i have today, but I read every bit of it. Something to keep in mind regarding Egypt, Cairo, and the PLO is that while israel is the #1 historical recipient of US foregin aid, Egypt is #2. Have you ever considered how Egypt funded the PLO and afforded to move Arafat into the picture? You can be certain that the folks who were sending our tax dollars to Egypt had those activities under very close scrutiny, while continuing to send our money.

The fact is that on the policy end, the US has been playing both sides of the fence, publicly promoting Israel while using foreign partners to fund and support the opposition. It's all in plain sight for anyone who wants to look at it - including israeli leadership who is a direct participant in maintaining this status.

At the time of the PLO the US was not supporting either side. The support of the US for Israel began after 1967 and it was not until Carter bought off Egypt in 1979 that we supported them. Arafat was brought to Palestine not because of the goodness in Israel's heart. He was brought back so Israel could outsource the occupation to an Arab face through the Oslo agreement.

 

[Charles Stucker]

We may disagree on the issue, but I'll explain my position:

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

When a Palestinian reacts, they are labeled a terrorist and are given a "fail" by the western media.

Some facts that get in the way of this view
1) Palestinians don't exist, the people calling themselves Palestinians are all Arabs who lived in Palestine for a while.
2) The premise for my acceptance of the Jewish State is that England OWNED Palestine after WWII and bequeathed it on the Jews, which was fully within England's rights.
3) The Palestinians are definitely part of a systematic violent approach to eradicate the Jews in the area. It began in 48 when every single neighboring Islamic country attacked Israel.

So when I am faced with a lot of media coverage talking about how "Eeeeebil" them "Joooos" be, I tend to discount it, because propaganda from the violent Islamic states in the region is endemic.

If you want an account of how pathetic the region was prior to the Jews returning, you need only read Twain's account Innocent's Abroad for it paints a vivid and bleak picture of what "Palestine" was like before the Jews returned to turn it into livable countryside.

 

[mdn2000]

We may disagree on the issue, but I'll explain my position:

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

When a Palestinian reacts, they are labeled a terrorist and are given a "fail" by the western media.

My comment regarding North American Indians is a contrast of the claims made by Israeli Zionists, whom I categorize as a subset within Judaism, just as many in the White Supramacist movement are a subset within Christianity. If the zionists are correct in their assertion that there was no Palestine and that they have true and legitimate claim to all of the territories, then we should be listening very closely to the North American Indians who claim that there was no USA and that THEY have legitimate claim over this nation. We KNOW that to be true.

If we support Israeli policy towards Palestine, we cannot be intellectually or morally honest unless we commit to honoring the claims of North American indian groups who claim that they have a right to this nation. Either we are wrong in our perception that Israel holds the moral high ground, or we are wrong in our perception that the North American indians do not hold legitimate moral claim over US soil.

This consideration is not even on the radar of most people - who simply form opinions based on what they see or hear, rather than on full consideration of the circumstances. For those who HAVE considered the circumstances - and placed them in perspective using a relevant example such as North American Indians - having it both ways is the ultimate hypocrisy.

As far as the "only related to snipers" point, I'm talking about policy, not the acts of individuals who may or may not support the bigger picture.

I wish I could comment on this at this time but I cannot, I am not stating I disagree or your wrong, I can see you put much thought into your response, most likely took a bit of time, if not at this moment you must have thought this out, maybe now, maybe before, either way I think your post took a bit of thought and work, more than a five second response.

Hopefully you will read my other posts, not that all my posts are worthy of reading, some are simply flames, tit for tat, etc, that said I just spent a couple hours on a response to some questions, I include sources such as books I own.

hell, I can post it here as well not that what will follow has anything to do with what you just posted but for simplicity, so that if you check back here you dont have to go to another thread to see a bit of what I have learned. Hopefully this will help you understand my understanding and if you may you can provide insight from your perspective.



The PLO as near as I can tell began in Egypt under Nasser, off the top of my head early 60's, Pan-Arab-ism was Nasser's idea, maybe not the first to originate this idea but Nasser definitely was a war-monger. Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo, not Palestine, hence the movement began outside of Israel/Palestine. From Egypt the PLO is next found in Jordan, short story the PLO went to war with Jordan, exiled from Jordan Arafat is next found......... eventually in Palestine.

Arafat was Egyptian, simply fighting for power, not for the people, the people were pawns used by men who seek easy power through murder and war.



You might of misinterpreted my point I attempted to make. I do understand that the Arabs fled their homes out of fear and definitely in some cases that fear was justified. Many Arabs stayed and did not flee, these Arabs were protected by the Jews. More specifically Moshe Dayan speaks of this in his book, "Moshe Dayan, Story of my life" (if I quote a book, I own it and its in my hand).

From pg 82, shortly after the War of Independence begins.



This is not the particular passage I hoped to find, I realize I need to take notes which I have just begun, a huge task given the books I have. So what is the point, A Jewish commander which buried any thoughts of revenge against Arabs who killed his younger brother in combat in order to secure peace. Not the actions of a man who supposedly drove out the Arab families. The book has much more than just this one incident that speaks of the character of Moshe Dayan.

This is also an example of the poor education we receive in the USA in regards to Israel, this is great example of the Media's bias. Here Moshe Dayan tells us Arabs fought with the Jews. Arabs fought on the side of the Jews, got it, Arabs fought on the side of Jews.



Quoting Moshe Dayan speaks volumes in respect to my statement, this is just one example of many examples Moshe Dayan gives. This from a distinguished military commander of the Jewish army. Moshe Dayan lived side by side with Arabs, Arabs who are personal friends of his.

I have other books as well, many other books, many other examples.

Before I move on Moshe Dayan was born in Palestine.

How about something from Walter Clay Lowdermilk (great name) written in 1944, not tainted by today's bias and politics.



pg. 157



Again but one book of many

Biggest misconception is how the Nation of Israel was reborn, when, how, and by whom.

My favorite topic or rant by far, I love this point. Let me take a break though, I have literally spent two hours on my simple response, much spent in Moshe Dayan's book, what a great book, Moshe Dayan's story literally brings tears to my eyes, especially when he talks of the lost of his brother and his friendship with Arabs. So I got caught up reading. I type well but have a tendency to misspell and spent a bit of time correcting my post so as not to be an easy target for the spell-checkers.

So that said and given what I post, does anyone doubt that I will not use Google or Wikipedia, that I am prepared to back up every statement I make with quotes from men that lived during the times we wish to understand, can anyone doubt that I have many sources at my finger tips. That if I state I can reference 75-100 books on the Middle East I do not speak of visiting a library, that these books are physically in my possession. That said I will get back to any point I have made and to anyone who wishes to question me.

Hey Marc39 (notice I have addressed you as you wish in a gesture of friendship) I am going to do you a great favor, get a copy of "The Revolt, Story of the Irgun" by Menachem Begin, I do not suggest this to educate you or change your opinion nor style of posting, I suggest this simply as a gesture and because I know you will love this factual account of a time in Israel's history

I dedicate all I write and all I post in regards to Palestine to Dov Gruner.

Thanks for the excellent post. I can't elaborate on any of your points because of commitments i have today, but I read every bit of it. Something to keep in mind regarding Egypt, Cairo, and the PLO is that while israel is the #1 historical recipient of US foregin aid, Egypt is #2. Have you ever considered how Egypt funded the PLO and afforded to move Arafat into the picture? You can be certain that the folks who were sending our tax dollars to Egypt had those activities under very close scrutiny, while continuing to send our money.

The fact is that on the policy end, the US has been playing both sides of the fence, publicly promoting Israel while using foreign partners to fund and support the opposition. It's all in plain sight for anyone who wants to look at it - including israeli leadership who is a direct participant in maintaining this status.

We do not disagree by much if any, on US policy, my posts state the same thing, not all posts of course but I have stated as much, I know its a bit time consuming to search someones posts but I have stated the same fact as you just stated.

 

[mdn2000]

We may disagree on the issue, but I'll explain my position:

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

When a Palestinian reacts, they are labeled a terrorist and are given a "fail" by the western media.

Some facts that get in the way of this view
1) Palestinians don't exist, the people calling themselves Palestinians are all Arabs who lived in Palestine for a while.
2) The premise for my acceptance of the Jewish State is that England OWNED Palestine after WWII and bequeathed it on the Jews, which was fully within England's rights.
3) The Palestinians are definitely part of a systematic violent approach to eradicate the Jews in the area. It began in 48 when every single neighboring Islamic country attacked Israel.

So when I am faced with a lot of media coverage talking about how "Eeeeebil" them "Joooos" be, I tend to discount it, because propaganda from the violent Islamic states in the region is endemic.

If you want an account of how pathetic the region was prior to the Jews returning, you need only read Twain's account Innocent's Abroad for it paints a vivid and bleak picture of what "Palestine" was like before the Jews returned to turn it into livable countryside.

Pretty accurate except for # 2 of your points. England did own Palestine, I wont argue the choice of words, the second part of point # 2 I believe history sees differently.

Dov Gruner pretty much settles my point.

 

[mdn2000]

Shorebreak

Thanks for the excellent post. I can't elaborate on any of your points because of commitments i have today, but I read every bit of it. Something to keep in mind regarding Egypt, Cairo, and the PLO is that while israel is the #1 historical recipient of US foregin aid, Egypt is #2. Have you ever considered how Egypt funded the PLO and afforded to move Arafat into the picture? You can be certain that the folks who were sending our tax dollars to Egypt had those activities under very close scrutiny, while continuing to send our money.

No need to consider, it is written, The USSR was very busy, short and sweet answer, its my bedtime, I have been working nights and somehow the morning just slipped into the afternoon and if I am not cut from my project tonight I will get only a few hours of sleep.

Boy do I spend way to much time on this board, not all the time, just when I travel for work.

Anyhow we have just touched on an era in which people forget about what the USSR was up to.

Egypt and Nasser, did Nasser receive our money, no, I cannot site a book but I say no, no money was given to Nasser under the Johnson administration, Soviet money yes, USA money no. Egypt was at war with Yemen at the time, quick response, maybe not real accurate, Yemen was financed by Saudi Arabia.

Kennedy did give aid to Nasser, again a short answer, what Kennedy gave was insignificant.

I use "The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Steven Spiegel as my source, very detailed and extremely researched book on the administration's policy in the Middle East

Nasser was not a friend of the USA, "Revolutions and Military Rule in the Middle East" by George M. Haddad. Nasser was a communist, somewhat, socialist definitely.

No time to respond further.

 

[mdn2000]

Middle East history is much deeper than the regular posters present, certainly the history is much more than the very bigoted name calling I see posted in numerous threads. That's bigotry from those who CLAIM to be on the Arab side and on from those who claim to be on the Jewish side.

 

[Marc39]

We may disagree on the issue, but I'll explain my position:

When Israel invades, shoots, steals, ethnically cleanses, conducts mass punishment that includes women, children, and elderly, murders, or commits heinous acts against anyone who is a Palestinian, they get a "pass" in the western media.

When a Palestinian reacts, they are labeled a terrorist and are given a "fail" by the western media.

Some facts that get in the way of this view
1) Palestinians don't exist, the people calling themselves Palestinians are all Arabs who lived in Palestine for a while.
2) The premise for my acceptance of the Jewish State is that England OWNED Palestine after WWII and bequeathed it on the Jews, which was fully within England's rights.
3) The Palestinians are definitely part of a systematic violent approach to eradicate the Jews in the area. It began in 48 when every single neighboring Islamic country attacked Israel.

So when I am faced with a lot of media coverage talking about how "Eeeeebil" them "Joooos" be, I tend to discount it, because propaganda from the violent Islamic states in the region is endemic.

If you want an account of how pathetic the region was prior to the Jews returning, you need only read Twain's account Innocent's Abroad for it paints a vivid and bleak picture of what "Palestine" was like before the Jews returned to turn it into livable countryside.

Pretty accurate except for # 2 of your points. England did own Palestine, I wont argue the choice of words, the second part of point # 2 I believe history sees differently.

Dov Gruner pretty much settles my point.

England never owned Palestine. England was merely the trustee assigned to implementing the Palestine Mandate. Sovereignty over Palestine was transferred to the Jews from the Ottoman Turks via the Treaty of Sevres and the San Remo Resolution.

Now, you know.

 

[Charles Stucker]

England never owned Palestine. England was merely the trustee assigned to implementing the Palestine Mandate. Sovereignty over Palestine was transferred to the Jews from the Ottoman Turks via the Treaty of Sevres and the San Remo Resolution.

Now, you know.

Danke

 

[mdn2000]

Some facts that get in the way of this view
1) Palestinians don't exist, the people calling themselves Palestinians are all Arabs who lived in Palestine for a while.
2) The premise for my acceptance of the Jewish State is that England OWNED Palestine after WWII and bequeathed it on the Jews, which was fully within England's rights.
3) The Palestinians are definitely part of a systematic violent approach to eradicate the Jews in the area. It began in 48 when every single neighboring Islamic country attacked Israel.

So when I am faced with a lot of media coverage talking about how "Eeeeebil" them "Joooos" be, I tend to discount it, because propaganda from the violent Islamic states in the region is endemic.

If you want an account of how pathetic the region was prior to the Jews returning, you need only read Twain's account Innocent's Abroad for it paints a vivid and bleak picture of what "Palestine" was like before the Jews returned to turn it into livable countryside.

Pretty accurate except for # 2 of your points. England did own Palestine, I wont argue the choice of words, the second part of point # 2 I believe history sees differently.

Dov Gruner pretty much settles my point.

England never owned Palestine. England was merely the trustee assigned to implementing the Palestine Mandate. Sovereignty over Palestine was transferred to the Jews from the Ottoman Turks via the Treaty of Sevres and the San Remo Resolution.

Now, you know.

Here is what Mouth69 (Marc39) states

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/101840-does-isreal-build-on-deeded-land-for-illegal-settelements-17.html

Figures are meaningless as the Ottomans kept notoriously inaccurate land ownership records, as did the

British.

The matter, however, is moot as international treaty transferred sovereignty over Palestine to the Jews after

World War I andinternational law established Palestine as the Jewish homeland.

Now, even YOU know.

Mouth69 (marc39) shows bigotry once again, the bigots eyes see only one thing, my figures do not come from

the Ottomans, my figures do not come from the British, my figures do come from the 1800's, as in written in

the 1899's, I find its best to use sources close to the times in question, not exclusively but that said

sometimes a source closer to the period of time in study is more relevant and less tainted by today's

political bias.

Which international treaty, how about a link, you cite a treaty yet no link, which "andinternational law" or

did you mean international law, which law by whose authority. Links, sources?

Of course the most obvious error in the bigots wrong headed idea of history is that sovereignty was passed

directly to Jews after WW I, fact is a mandate was given to the British.

Treaty, which treaty.

Bigots will ignore this.

Treaty: San Remo Resolution
Law: Palestine Mandate.

Now, even a dolt like you knows.

Mouth69 calls a Resolution a treaty, anybody think Mouth69 actually read the document.

Mouth69 calls the Palestine Mandate international law, anyone think Mouth69 read the Mandate.

I have a question for everyone on both sides of this issue, does a dolt have the intelligence to know he is a dolt?

 

[Marc39]

Pretty accurate except for # 2 of your points. England did own Palestine, I wont argue the choice of words, the second part of point # 2 I believe history sees differently.

Dov Gruner pretty much settles my point.

England never owned Palestine. England was merely the trustee assigned to implementing the Palestine Mandate. Sovereignty over Palestine was transferred to the Jews from the Ottoman Turks via the Treaty of Sevres and the San Remo Resolution.

Now, you know.

Here is what Mouth69 (Marc39) states

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/101840-does-isreal-build-on-deeded-land-for-illegal-settelements-17.html

Mouth69 (marc39) shows bigotry once again, the bigots eyes see only one thing, my figures do not come from

the Ottomans, my figures do not come from the British, my figures do come from the 1800's, as in written in

the 1899's, I find its best to use sources close to the times in question, not exclusively but that said

sometimes a source closer to the period of time in study is more relevant and less tainted by today's

political bias.

Which international treaty, how about a link, you cite a treaty yet no link, which "andinternational law" or

did you mean international law, which law by whose authority. Links, sources?

Of course the most obvious error in the bigots wrong headed idea of history is that sovereignty was passed

directly to Jews after WW I, fact is a mandate was given to the British.

Treaty, which treaty.

Bigots will ignore this.

Treaty: San Remo Resolution
Law: Palestine Mandate.

Now, even a dolt like you knows.

Mouth69 calls a Resolution a treaty, anybody think Mouth69 actually read the document.

Mouth69 calls the Palestine Mandate international law, anyone think Mouth69 read the Mandate.

I have a question for everyone on both sides of this issue, does a dolt have the intelligence to know he is a dolt?

The San Remo Res. constitutes a treaty that represents international law.

You're way, way over your head. You're possibly better suited to post about knitting or ladies' volleyball

 

[mdn2000]

Some facts that get in the way of this view
1) Palestinians don't exist, the people calling themselves Palestinians are all Arabs who lived in Palestine for a while.
2) The premise for my acceptance of the Jewish State is that England OWNED Palestine after WWII and bequeathed it on the Jews, which was fully within England's rights.
3) The Palestinians are definitely part of a systematic violent approach to eradicate the Jews in the area. It began in 48 when every single neighboring Islamic country attacked Israel.

So when I am faced with a lot of media coverage talking about how "Eeeeebil" them "Joooos" be, I tend to discount it, because propaganda from the violent Islamic states in the region is endemic.

If you want an account of how pathetic the region was prior to the Jews returning, you need only read Twain's account Innocent's Abroad for it paints a vivid and bleak picture of what "Palestine" was like before the Jews returned to turn it into livable countryside.

Pretty accurate except for # 2 of your points. England did own Palestine, I wont argue the choice of words, the second part of point # 2 I believe history sees differently.

Dov Gruner pretty much settles my point.

England never owned Palestine. England was merely the trustee assigned to implementing the Palestine Mandate. Sovereignty over Palestine was transferred to the Jews from the Ottoman Turks via the Treaty of Sevres and the San Remo Resolution.

Now, you know.

I was calling this member of USMB mouth69, I take that back and am sorry, I apologize to the member I called this name and all who read my posts where I used this slur. It is obvious Marc39 is a dolt and is the forum dunce. From now on I will refer to Marc39 as Forum Dunce39. Sorry about my mistake.

The Treaty of Sevres, your source, your link, I would love to see the website that explains this to Forum Dunce39. The website will worth the laughs, I will be sitting down and I cant wait for this, what a hoot to read what the internet dunces write and think.

If I may reference a book, again a book I own.

The Near East, A modern history, by William Yale, 1958, 1968

The Ottoman Empire was on its deathbed, the wars of the Ottomans under their sultans were at an end; the war of the Turkish nationalists was soon to begin. There was to be no peace in Asia Minor till the Turkish nationalist armies under the dynamic leadership of Mustafa Kamal (Ataturk) drove the Greeks out of Smyrna (Izmir) and forced the European Powers to annul the Treaty of Sevres imposed upon the Ottoman sultan's government and to replace it by the Treaty of Lausanne with Nationalist Turkey

Forum Dunce39 (marc39), mentored by Homer Simpson, dolt!

What a moron, to prove a point Forum Dunce39 cites a treaty (no links or reference's) that did not last more than three years.

A dolt has not the intelligence to stop himself from doing harm to himself.

I cannot wait until our next debate Forum Dunce39