Map of Ottoman Empire @ 1900's clearly shows, land NOT OWNED BY ARABS:

[member]

but there is NO Jewish right to ownership at all. NONE!

You don't seem to be very clear what you are arguing here. You, like many, are attempting to conflate private property ownership with sovereignty. You, like many, use this as a way to restrict Jewish rights at both ends of the candle, as it were. Because, apparently, you think there should be different rules for Jews. Sigh. Where have we heard that before?

So, to be clear:

You are arguing that the right to purchase property should be withheld from people who are Jewish?!

and/or

You are arguing that the right to self-determination should be withheld from people who are Jewish?

Wrong.
I am separately arguing both issues.

Jews have absolutely no legal right to any political control over Palestine at all, since Jews are almost entirely a minority of foreign illegal immigrants, and that any Jews were allowed to legally immigrate to Palestine on the promise they would never try to get involved rule or sovereignty.
Jews are not the natives nor the majority, in Israel or Palestine/Israel.

Jews have almost no legal right to any land or property, because they did not actually purchase any significant amount of land, unlike the Palestinians, who have valid deeds, titles, bill of sales, etc.

The argument is moot because Israel is there and they have nuclear weapons. If the United States were to become a minor nation in the near future, it may get interesting in that region though.

how'about a little "moot"-beer for you ?



"If the United States were to become a minor nation in the near future, it may get interesting in that region though..."




a snack with that beer ?

 

[member]

Those are Arab names, not Jewish names.

You are trying to make the term "Arab" a catch-all phrase which encompasses the entire MENA region, going backwards for all time. You do this for the distinct purpose of erasing "Jewish" as a separate ethnic or cultural group indigenous in the area.

You explicitly reject the idea that this catch-all phrase of "Arab" is a result of conquest, invasion and colonization. You do this for the distinct purpose of erasing "Jewish" as a separate ethnic or cultural group indigenous in the area.

What you don't seem to realize is that by erasing any sub-group of the region, you are not only erasing Jewish culture, but also ALL the individual cultures which exist in the MENA region. You are erasing EVERYBODY. (Well, unless you have that double standard thing going on.)

If you argue that there is no cultural or ethnic differentiation between Canaanites and Philistines and Phoenicians and Egyptians and Assyrians and Moabites and Midianites and Aramaeans because they were all "Arabs", then you are arguing against the existence of ALL these cultures, as separate and distinct cultures. If there is no cultural or ethnic or national differentiation between Syria and Egypt and Jordan and Iraq and Lebanon and Iran and Saudia Arabia and all the others and Israel, because they are all "Arab", then you are arguing against the existence of ALL of these states. Further, you are arguing that France can't exist, nor can Spain or Portugal or Belgium or Switzerland or Germany, because they are all just Europeans.

The Jewish people originated in that territory, in that land. There they developed and differentiated themselves from all other peoples -- developing their own language, religion, laws, myths, stories, history, customs, celebrations, holidays, and rituals. Pretending they didn't, or pretending they don't exist, or pretending they don't "count" is ... well ... you know what it is.

Wrong.
The whole point is that I am NOT arguing that there is no cultural or ethnic differentiation between Canaanites and Philistines and Phoenicians and Egyptians and Assyrians and Moabites and Midianites and Aramaeans, etc.
I am arguing that they are all very interesting, unique, valuable, and historically significant.
And they are not Hebrew.
We know when the Hebrew invasion occurred, around 1000 BC, and we know they were hated for their invasion and massacres, like as Jericho. Otherwise the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans would not have so easily defeated them. They had no allies, and we know they ruled only for a few hundred years, due to their unpopular brutality.

We know absolutely for sure that Hebrew tribes did NOT originate in the Land of Canaan, and have absolutely no history there before 1000 BC.

We know all the groups that did exist in the Land of Canaan, like the Canaanites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Moabites, Akkadians, Urites, Aramaeans, etc. The Hebrew tribes were not among them. The Hebrew tribes also are Arab, but they developed independently somewhere else.

Likely it was the Sinai desert where they came from.

The only claim to any land ownership in Israel by Jews comes from an old book of mythology written by Jews.
That does not hold any water with me or any sane person.
And clearly even in the Jewish account of the Old Testament, the war crimes committed by Jews invalidate any possible claims.
To attempt to resurrect the ancient Hebrew dynasty is hideously corrupt.
It was not a good country that respected any kind of law and order we require these days.
To even admit one has any association to the barbarism, cruelty, and injustice of the Old Testament, is to condemn the one making the claim.

"Wrong."

"The whole point is that I am NOT arguing that there is no cultural or ethnic differentiation between Canaanites and Philistines and Phoenicians and Egyptians and Assyrians and Moabites and Midianites and Aramaeans, etc. -- I am arguing that they are all very interesting, unique, valuable, and historically significant. And they are not Hebrew. We know when the Hebrew invasion occurred, around 1000 BC, and we know they were hated for their invasion and massacres, like as Jericho. Otherwise the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans would not have so easily defeated them. They had no allies, and we know they ruled only for a few hundred years, due to their unpopular brutality. We know absolutely for sure that Hebrew tribes did NOT originate in the Land of Canaan, and have absolutely no history there before 1000 BC. We know all the groups that did exist in the Land of Canaan, like the Canaanites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Moabites, Akkadians, Urites, Aramaeans, etc. The Hebrew tribes were not among them. The Hebrew tribes also are Arab, but they developed independently somewhere else. Likely it was the Sinai desert where they came from. The only claim to any land ownership in Israel by Jews comes from an old book of mythology written by Jews. That does not hold any water with me or any sane person. And clearly even in the Jewish account of the Old Testament, the war crimes committed by Jews invalidate any possible claims. To attempt to resurrect the ancient Hebrew dynasty is hideously corrupt. It was not a good country that respected any kind of law and order we require these days. To even admit one has any association to the barbarism, cruelty, and injustice of the Old Testament, is to condemn the one making the claim."

". . . It was not a good country that respected any kind of law and order we require these days."





ok. whatever you say....

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

France and Britain owned the place after WWI, leaving the final land of the Ottomans in present day Turkey.

Who then fought Greece and won, as Greece attacked them for revenge basically.

At the time of WWI none of these countries now in the Middle East existed. Only provinces of the Ottoman Empire were left behind. When the French and British left the remnants fought each other for more land and control to give us what we have today.

The Ottomans were a brutal lot...............who used the Kurds to slaughter the Armenian Christians in the deserts of present day Turkey. Telling the Kurds of the time that Allah would reward them for doing so...........Known as the Armenian Genocide............

The Russo Turk War was a lead up to this part of it. The Armenians fought with the Russians..........and were hated by the Ottomans........The Genocide was revenge.

 

[AEWHistory]

Except that there is a 100% chance that this is incorrect. There is no region on Earth where the state, church, waqf, or other public organization doesn’t own land. This chart likely shows 0% of that land.* So the only thing this chart indicates is the ratio of PRIVATE land ownership between Jews and non-Jews. Since public lands were always the majority of lands in Israel/Palestine, your statistic is not accurate.

Moreover, this splits between Jews and non-Jews without splitting more finely. I suspect that there is a large Christian and Druze component to this land ownership with the fellahin often reduced to being renters. So again, land ownership showed things like who controlled the land, but stop using these statistics to say something that they don’t.

*-perhaps waqf lands are included in the Arab land ownership, perhaps not. Either way, this is at the heart of why these statistics are wildly misleading.

FACT:View attachment 32891 ARABS owned more than 90% of the land prior to partition. All the deflection, tap dancing, whining, coloring book maps and stamping of feet won't change the facts contained in the Survey of Palestine commissioned by the United Nations prior to partition:

 

[Rigby5]

That is a lie.
In 1920, the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish and they owned even less of the land.
Almost all the Jews in Israel came from illegal immigration in the 1940s or later.
And they simply killed the Arab land owners or chased them out to refugee camps.

 

[Rigby5]

France and Britain owned the place after WWI, leaving the final land of the Ottomans in present day Turkey.

Who then fought Greece and won, as Greece attacked them for revenge basically.

At the time of WWI none of these countries now in the Middle East existed. Only provinces of the Ottoman Empire were left behind. When the French and British left the remnants fought each other for more land and control to give us what we have today.

The Ottomans were a brutal lot...............who used the Kurds to slaughter the Armenian Christians in the deserts of present day Turkey. Telling the Kurds of the time that Allah would reward them for doing so...........Known as the Armenian Genocide............

The Russo Turk War was a lead up to this part of it. The Armenians fought with the Russians..........and were hated by the Ottomans........The Genocide was revenge.

Not quite right.

The French and British won WWI and defeated the Ottoman Empire, but they had promised the Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians independence in exchange for helping beat the Ottoman Empire.
So France and Britain never owned any land in the Mideast.
The French Mandate for Syria and the British Mandate for Palestine were protectorates for the day they could be independent and rule themselves.

All the people in the Mideast had their small areas and these groupings like Palestine, Syria, and Jordan were essentially just federations of countries that had always existed.
The only country that did not exist then was Israel, Judea or Samaria.
That is because they had not existed in thousands of years, and even back when they did exist, they were temporary invaders who only lasted a few hundred years.

 

[Rigby5]

Except that there is a 100% chance that this is incorrect. There is no region on Earth where the state, church, waqf, or other public organization doesn’t own land. This chart likely shows 0% of that land.* So the only thing this chart indicates is the ratio of PRIVATE land ownership between Jews and non-Jews. Since public lands were always the majority of lands in Israel/Palestine, your statistic is not accurate.

Moreover, this splits between Jews and non-Jews without splitting more finely. I suspect that there is a large Christian and Druze component to this land ownership with the fellahin often reduced to being renters. So again, land ownership showed things like who controlled the land, but stop using these statistics to say something that they don’t.

*-perhaps waqf lands are included in the Arab land ownership, perhaps not. Either way, this is at the heart of why these statistics are wildly misleading.

FACT:View attachment 32891 ARABS owned more than 90% of the land prior to partition. All the deflection, tap dancing, whining, coloring book maps and stamping of feet won't change the facts contained in the Survey of Palestine commissioned by the United Nations prior to partition:

Except it is untrue that almost all the land was not owned by Moslem Arabs.

Less than 5%v of the population of Palestine was ever Jewish, and since they were living almost exclusively in the Old Quarter of Jerusalem, they not only rented, but owned no agricultural enterprises or land hardly at all.
It was not until the "back to the land" movement of Theodor Hertzl around 1896 that there was any real Jewish land ownership at all, and that was still tiny, never amounting to even 5% of Palestine by 1948,

Sure there was public land, but it was owned by tribes and villages, for shared grazing rights, and Jews took no part in that with any significance.

 

[MartyNYC]

There wasn’t any political entity named palestine during the Ottoman Empire. Waves of foreigners also flooded the area during the Ottoman period, including Albanians, Bosnians, and Circassians. A common surname is Bushnaq, referring to Bosnia. During the subsequent British Mandate, Arabs flooded into the area, in response to improving economic opportunities created by Jews.

 

[MartyNYC]

Historical facts fly in the face of those who claim: "The Jews stole the land".

The "land" was Ottoman Empire territory for 600 years, and then under the control of the British after WWI once the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Get it right, the Arabs had no say or control over what happened to the land for 800 years. In fact, the Ottomans who CONQUERED the Arabs were enemies:

Historical facts fly in the face of those who claim: "The Jews stole the land".

The "land" was Ottoman Empire territory for 600 years, and then under the control of the British after WWI once the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Get it right, the Arabs had no say or control over what happened to the land for 800 years. In fact, the Ottomans who CONQUERED the Arabs were enemies:

Very cleaver those Zionist land theives building their wailing wall over the Al Asqa Mosque.

Um, the Western Wall was built 700+ years BEFORE Aqsa mosque. Jews lived in Jerusalem thousands of years before Muslims even existed. D’oh.

Relief from the Arch of Titus, showing The Spoils of Jerusalem being brought into Rome (video) | Khan Academy

 

[eagle1462010]

France and Britain owned the place after WWI, leaving the final land of the Ottomans in present day Turkey.

Who then fought Greece and won, as Greece attacked them for revenge basically.

At the time of WWI none of these countries now in the Middle East existed. Only provinces of the Ottoman Empire were left behind. When the French and British left the remnants fought each other for more land and control to give us what we have today.

The Ottomans were a brutal lot...............who used the Kurds to slaughter the Armenian Christians in the deserts of present day Turkey. Telling the Kurds of the time that Allah would reward them for doing so...........Known as the Armenian Genocide............

The Russo Turk War was a lead up to this part of it. The Armenians fought with the Russians..........and were hated by the Ottomans........The Genocide was revenge.

Not quite right.

The French and British won WWI and defeated the Ottoman Empire, but they had promised the Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians independence in exchange for helping beat the Ottoman Empire.
So France and Britain never owned any land in the Mideast.
The French Mandate for Syria and the British Mandate for Palestine were protectorates for the day they could be independent and rule themselves.

All the people in the Mideast had their small areas and these groupings like Palestine, Syria, and Jordan were essentially just federations of countries that had always existed.
The only country that did not exist then was Israel, Judea or Samaria.
That is because they had not existed in thousands of years, and even back when they did exist, they were temporary invaders who only lasted a few hundred years.

Wars always decide the owner...........always have and always will.

 

[Mindful]

Not only was there no such country as "Palestine", in 1946, there had never been a country called Palestine. Before the British conquered Jerusalem, Palestine was a sub-province of the Ottoman Empire. (And after the British left, of course, Jordan and Egypt moved in to occupy Gaza and the West Bank.)

 

[MartyNYC]

Not only was there no such country as "Palestine", in 1946, there had never been a country called Palestine. Before the British conquered Jerusalem, Palestine was a sub-province of the Ottoman Empire. (And after the British left, of course, Jordan and Egypt moved in to occupy Gaza and the West Bank.)

There wasn‘t a political entity “palestine“ in the Ottoman Empire. The area was divided and subdivided over the years into different districts, such as Jerusalem, Nablus, Gaza, and Safed.

 

[Rigby5]

but there is NO Jewish right to ownership at all. NONE!

You don't seem to be very clear what you are arguing here. You, like many, are attempting to conflate private property ownership with sovereignty. You, like many, use this as a way to restrict Jewish rights at both ends of the candle, as it were. Because, apparently, you think there should be different rules for Jews. Sigh. Where have we heard that before?

So, to be clear:

You are arguing that the right to purchase property should be withheld from people who are Jewish?!

and/or

You are arguing that the right to self-determination should be withheld from people who are Jewish?

Wrong.
I am separately arguing both issues.

Jews have absolutely no legal right to any political control over Palestine at all, since Jews are almost entirely a minority of foreign illegal immigrants, and that any Jews were allowed to legally immigrate to Palestine on the promise they would never try to get involved rule or sovereignty.
Jews are not the natives nor the majority, in Israel or Palestine/Israel.

Jews have almost no legal right to any land or property, because they did not actually purchase any significant amount of land, unlike the Palestinians, who have valid deeds, titles, bill of sales, etc.

Sigh. Yeah, same old same old.

Jews have no right to self-determination. Because ... reasons.

Jews have no right to purchase property. Because ... reasons.

Jewish sovereignty is illegal because ... reasons.

Jewish property rights are illegal because ... reasons.

Boring. As well as incorrect.

You are just lying.
When someone says Israel has no right to exist that does NOT involve "self determination" because Israeli Jews are not FROM the Mideast but mostly Russia and Poland.
And it is a like to claim "self determination" allows a country to force one single religion on all of its citizens.
Jews are not even a majority in Israel, if you allow the original owners to return to their properties.
The fact Jews did NOT purchase properties, but stole them instead, has NOTHING at all to do with whether or not Jews are allowed to buy properties.

 

[Rigby5]

The Hebrew tribes also are Arab, but they developed independently somewhere else.

We know absolutely for sure that Hebrew tribes did NOT originate in the Land of Canaan, and have absolutely no history there before 1000 BC.

We know when the Hebrew invasion occurred, around 1000 BC

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

You agree that the Jewish people are also "Arab", that term being used by you to mean broadly Middle Eastern. The Jewish people, then, are part of the "Arab group of peoples" (according to your definition).

You agree that the Jewish people, like all sub-cultures of "Arabs", are

very interesting, unique, valuable, and historically significant

Yet, somehow, the Jewish people "developed independently somewhere else" -- meaning OUTSIDE your self-proclaimed grouping of "Arab people".

Dude, you can not have it both ways. Either the Jewish people are part of the broader set of "Arab peoples" (and entitled to all the rights and privileges you grant to all other "Arab peoples" (including indigeneity, self-determination and sovereignty) OR the Jewish people developed "independently somewhere else" and are therefore NOT part of the broader set of "Arab peoples".

You can't have it both ways. That is the definition of double standards.

You simply do not know history.
Hebrew are originally an Arab culture and speak an Arab dialect, but the eastern Jews are not.
Their native language is Yiddish, which is Germanic, and their foods, clothing, and other cultural habits are totally wrong for the Mideast.
In fact, they have no connection to the Mideast at all, and never even purchased the land they occupy in the Mideast, but instead stole it through murder and intimidation.

If you can not distinguish between ancient Hebrew and modern Israeli Jews, then there is no hope for you.
But even ancient Hebrew clearly had not right to the Land of Canaan.
They came by way of Egypt, likely from the Sinai, and massacred Canaanites, like at Jericho, in order to steal land.

 

[Rigby5]

We know when the Hebrew invasion occurred, around 1000 BC...

We know absolutely for sure that Hebrew tribes did NOT originate in the Land of Canaan, and have absolutely no history there before 1000 BC.

The Hebrew tribes also are Arab, but they developed independently somewhere else.

We know this HOW, exactly?!

Site your sources.

That is silly.
We don't know the history of where the Hebrew tribes came from because they were illiterate and left no mark on history.
It was not until they spent 400 years in Egypt that they learned how to read or write.
So we will never know where they came from.
But we do know it was NOT the Land of Canaan because there is no trace of them there, and there also was no drought there which could have caused them to want to go to Egypt.
Since they did go to Egypt, most likely they were living in the Sinai.
That is close to Egypt, so it makes the most sense.
It fits with the fact they were sheep herders mostly.
And the Sinai is also where they went after they left Egypt, so likely was their previous home.

 

[Rigby5]

Jews have all the right to self determination in the world, but they have to find some place where they can do that without violating the rights of the indigenous natives.

Sounds like you are saying that peoples have the rights to self-determination on the territories where they are indigenous. Well done. The UN agrees. As do I. And any moral person.

Tell me, what is the indigenous territory of the Jewish people?

The indigenous territory of the Russian Jewish people is Russia.
The indigenous territory of the German Jewish people is Germany,
Etc.

There is no trace of what or where the original Jewish culture and location was, nor would it matter since modern Jews would not fit in there at all, nor would they want to,
The Old Testament is horrific and to never be emulated by anyone ever again,

And the Land of Canaan most certainly is NOT where the Hebrew tribes came from or lived for any significant amount of time.

 

[Rigby5]

but there is NO Jewish right to ownership at all. NONE!

You don't seem to be very clear what you are arguing here. You, like many, are attempting to conflate private property ownership with sovereignty. You, like many, use this as a way to restrict Jewish rights at both ends of the candle, as it were. Because, apparently, you think there should be different rules for Jews. Sigh. Where have we heard that before?

So, to be clear:

You are arguing that the right to purchase property should be withheld from people who are Jewish?!

and/or

You are arguing that the right to self-determination should be withheld from people who are Jewish?

Wrong.
I am separately arguing both issues.

Jews have absolutely no legal right to any political control over Palestine at all, since Jews are almost entirely a minority of foreign illegal immigrants, and that any Jews were allowed to legally immigrate to Palestine on the promise they would never try to get involved rule or sovereignty.
Jews are not the natives nor the majority, in Israel or Palestine/Israel.

Jews have almost no legal right to any land or property, because they did not actually purchase any significant amount of land, unlike the Palestinians, who have valid deeds, titles, bill of sales, etc.

The argument is moot because Israel is there and they have nuclear weapons. If the United States were to become a minor nation in the near future, it may get interesting in that region though.

The argument is NOT moot because the majority is still 12 million Moslem Palestinians and not the 6 million Jewish Israelis, Nor can Israel exist without massive aid annual aid from the US,
It is a totally fake country created and artificially supplied by the US.
It is not stable or able to survive on its own.

 

[Rigby5]

You don't seem to be very clear what you are arguing here. You, like many, are attempting to conflate private property ownership with sovereignty. You, like many, use this as a way to restrict Jewish rights at both ends of the candle, as it were. Because, apparently, you think there should be different rules for Jews. Sigh. Where have we heard that before?

So, to be clear:

You are arguing that the right to purchase property should be withheld from people who are Jewish?!

and/or

You are arguing that the right to self-determination should be withheld from people who are Jewish?

Wrong.
I am separately arguing both issues.

Jews have absolutely no legal right to any political control over Palestine at all, since Jews are almost entirely a minority of foreign illegal immigrants, and that any Jews were allowed to legally immigrate to Palestine on the promise they would never try to get involved rule or sovereignty.
Jews are not the natives nor the majority, in Israel or Palestine/Israel.

Jews have almost no legal right to any land or property, because they did not actually purchase any significant amount of land, unlike the Palestinians, who have valid deeds, titles, bill of sales, etc.

Sigh. Yeah, same old same old.

Jews have no right to self-determination. Because ... reasons.

Jews have no right to purchase property. Because ... reasons.

Jewish sovereignty is illegal because ... reasons.

Jewish property rights are illegal because ... reasons.

Boring. As well as incorrect.

Jews have all the right to self determination in the world, but they have to find some place where they can do that without violating the rights of the indigenous natives.
Jews are not indigenous natives to Palestine, so should have gone somewhere uninhabited, like Madagascar.

Jews have all the right in the world to purchase property, but the problem is they did not and still refuse to pay for anything. They want it all for free, and they want to kill the rightful owners in order to take it.

Jewish sovereignty is illegal in Palestine, not only because they are not indigenous natives, but because the indigenous native Palestinians earned their sovereignty by fighting with the Allies against the Ottoman empire.

Jewish property claims are invalid because they did not pay for almost any land.

Do you enjoy making a jackass out of yourself?
Try posting a fact every now and then.

The facts are well known, that Jews were allowed to immigrate to Palestine on the promise they have no claims or political ambitions for their immigration.
They clearly have no right to break off any of Palestine for a Jewish state, much less take all of it, as they seem inclined.

What facts do you want?
Like the Treaty of San Remo, the Treaty of Sevres, or anything else that establishes Palestine and not Israel?

Jews paid lots of money to Arabs for land and the Arabs were happy to take it.
You are an idiot and have no fans here.

That is just a lie.
No Arab sold any land to Jews because it was illegal.
Some Jews did send money to Turkish frauds, but that had no legal standing.
And the amount of land purchased by Jews in Palestine was miniscule, less than 5%, by all records and census information.

 

[Rigby5]

Historical facts fly in the face of those who claim: "The Jews stole the land".

The "land" was Ottoman Empire territory for 600 years, and then under the control of the British after WWI once the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Get it right, the Arabs had no say or control over what happened to the land for 800 years. In fact, the Ottomans who CONQUERED the Arabs were enemies:

The whole mid-East problem is a Muslim schism wrapped inside a Persian/Turk struggle to determine who will rule the Arabs.

Lines drawn by dead Brits only complicate the problem.

We should back off and let them solve it themselves.

Hence the reason the Turks and Saudis gave rise to ISIS, in order to stop and reverse the expansion of Shiite Iran. This ancient blood flood will never end. All the West needs to do is fan the flames and reap the rewards, as they have throughout history.

Wrong.
Since ISIS seems to know nothing about Islam, is mostly secular Sunni captured by the US, and intentionally trying to make Muslims look bad, it is almost for sure that it is Israel and the US who created ISIS.

". . .it is almost for sure that it is Israel and the US who created ISIS."

what an outreagous thing to say...



they ...created themselves....

That is obviously impossible.
ISIS could not possibly have created itself.
First of all, ISIS could never have existed if the US had not taken out Saddam.
Second is that the secular Sunni who formed ISIS had just been released from US POW camps, so had no weapons, money, jobs, or vehicles.
For ISIS to have all these weapons and Toyota trucks, someone had to be arming and supplying them.
If you think it was not Israel or the US, then who was it?

,,,
"If you think it was not Israel or the US, then who was it?"

people have been blaming everything from the ice age to natural disasters to the ills of allll societies....and you and your: "ISIS could never have existed if the US[etc]...." on:



...
we've never met. what do i know ?

this ..."way of thinking" - it's disturbing... a red [false] flag. sorry.... don't mean to hurt your "feelings." i can't put it as eloquently as.....some philosopher or political analyst but...this is a twisted, scary outlook. before isis/alQu, plenty of savage "islamic" terrorist groups operating the same way, with the-same mindset, just different man-bodies now] -- sorry nice guys.........one of my thoughts about you saying this is:

MAN....he must ******* HATE the u.s and israel more than....................these terrorist killing machines.

That is silly.
There was no armed marauders like ISIS ever before the US invaded Iraq and suddenly let thousands of Sunni out of prison.
The connection is obvious.
It should be easy to trace those hundreds of brand new Toyotas they were given.
The fact no one has or been willing to trace the source of these Toyotas proves their purchase is being suppressed from high places.

The people in ISIS obviously never were involved in any combat before,
The were Iraqi bureaucrats before the US invasion of Iraq.