Obama does not state the 1967 border should be returned...

[edthecynic]

really? where?

In a thread you've posted in, so you tell me what you think was promised in 2004 and I'll link you to the posts which link to the 2004 agreement.

But you first, since I've already posted it and you apparently missed it, you still have posted nothing and if I link you to my past post you will pretend you already knew it.

show me your quote please.

When you admit you have no idea what was promised to Israel in 2004.

 

[Trajan]

If by "hes" you mean Obama, then you are lying!

And by "them" I'm guessing you mean the Palestinians. Yes?

he as in Abbas...you know the Palestinian? do you know of any others who are lobbying the UN for same? again this is common knowledge, you are just flying by the seat of your pants here.....


QED, the pre 1967 'point' of yours , is inane.

I know Obama is NOT lobbying for PRE-1967 borders, contrary to FAUX and the GOP spin machine and the majority of CON$ervative parrots on this board, so my PRE-1967 point is quite relevant.

you know, I frankly don't know what to say, you have a comprehension issue. Even mentioning the 67 time frame is meaningless UNLESS he IS speaking Antebellum.......that, is the point.

Speaking of the AFTER war border would make no sense as a starting point from a Pali point of view,its a dead loss, he doesn't want Abbas to push for this Sec. council resolution, he was in his feeble mind throwing them a bone. IF NOT, there would be NO POINT in even speaking to 1967 in his speech at all and Netanyahu would have no issue.

 

[Trajan]

In a thread you've posted in, so you tell me what you think was promised in 2004 and I'll link you to the posts which link to the 2004 agreement.

But you first, since I've already posted it and you apparently missed it, you still have posted nothing and if I link you to my past post you will pretend you already knew it.

show me your quote please.

When you admit you have no idea what was promised to Israel in 2004.

no, you are trotting from one google search to the next, its clear, you cannot even comprehend a singular point and are what I call; a google ranger, you're dredging things up willy nilly because you have no historical knowledgeable grasp, thats been evident in the last several pages,if so you would have 'trumped' me already.....( that s peaks to your lack of critical thinking as well) I don't care what you think or not I know.....

 

[edthecynic]

you are either psychotic .......or incapable of simple logic.

the Palestinians are demanding a start at the pre- 1967 borders, that what hes lobbying the UN for, because, starting at the post 1967 war borders would leave them starting from' no where' ....

If by "hes" you mean Obama, then you are lying!

And by "them" I'm guessing you mean the Palestinians. Yes?

he as in Abbas...you know, the Palestinian? do you know of any others who are lobbying the UN for same? again this is common knowledge, you are just flying by the seat of your pants here.....


QED, the pre 1967 'point' of yours , is inane.

I know Obama is NOT lobbying for PRE-1967 borders, contrary to FAUX and the GOP spin machine and the majority of CON$ervative parrots on this board, so my PRE-1967 point is quite relevant.

you know, I frankly don't know what to say, you have a comprehension issue. Even mentioning the 67 time frame is meaningless UNLESS he IS speaking Antebellum.......that, is the point.

Speaking of the AFTER war border would make no sense as a starting point from a Pali point of view,its a dead loss, he doesn't want Abbas to push for this Sec. council resolution, he was in his feeble mind throwing them a bone. IF NOT, there would be NO POINT in even speaking to 1967 in his speech at all and Netanyahu would have no issue.

OK, now you can't deny that "he" is Obama and not Abbas.

So you are lying about Obama wanting to go back to PRE-1967 borders like all the other mindless drones. Nowhere did Obama say PRE-1967 and Obama rejected the Palestinian claim to PRE-1967 boarders and NaziYahoo had no issue, and is only pretending to object to keep his coalition together.

Even the Israeli press made that quite clear, only the GOP hate media "reported" the crap you mindlessly parrot.

Haaretz.Com

Obama granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory

After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders.

By Aluf Benn Tags: Israel news Barack Obama Benjamin Netanyahu



Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can feel satisfied while flying to Washington Thursday night. U.S. President Barack Obama has granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory.


In return for his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, without defining the size of these lands, Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands for strict security arrangements and a gradual, continuous withdrawal from the West Bank.
He suggested beginning negotiations on borders and security arrangements, and delaying discussions on the core issues such as Jerusalem and refugees.


More importantly, Obama scornfully rejected the Palestinian initiative to attain recognition at the United Nations and to isolate Israel, demanded the Palestinians return to negotiations, and called on Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These points came straight out of the policy pages of the Prime Minister's Bureau in Jerusalem. Netanyahu could not have asked for more: Obama outright rejects Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' recognition campaign, as well as the Palestinian reconciliation agreement.

His approach to Israel was empathetic, not only with his reassurance of the U.S. commitment to Israel's security but also with his attempt "to save Israel from itself." Obama warned us that if we perpetuated the occupation, we shall crash due to our demographic inferiority, new military technology, and most importantly, due to the anger of the masses who are slowly gaining power in the surrounding countries. In order to retain the vision of a Jewish and democratic state, Israel must end the occupation and withdraw from the West Bank.

Netanyahu will have to reply to Obama by accepting the principle of "1967 borders with agreed land swaps." He made a step toward that direction in his speech in the Knesset this week, when he talked about preserving settlement blocs, which is the same thing in Israeli wording. On the eve of his U.S. trip, Netanyahu's advisers hinted that he will accept this principle on Friday during his close-room meeting with Obama, while presenting a less binding policy during his U.S. Congress speech on Tuesday in fear of causing the breakup of the coalition.

 

[Antiderivative]

He is a *****. He calls against the actions of Israel, but then he bows down and sucks Netanyahu's cock.

It is a remarkable display of dishonest showmanship. Obama will be soon sending Israel billions of dollars to oppress and kills Palestinians.

 

[edthecynic]

show me your quote please.

When you admit you have no idea what was promised to Israel in 2004.

no, you are trotting from one google search to the next, its clear, you cannot even comprehend a singular point and are what I call; a google ranger, you're dredging things up willy nilly because you have no historical knowledgeable grasp, thats been evident in the last several pages,if so you would have 'trumped' me already.....( that s peaks to your lack of critical thinking as well) I don't care what you think or not I know.....

I have trumped you already, and obviously google has not helped you find the 2004 agreement. I posted it already at about 8AM this morning in another thread you have posted in, so the burden is on you to say what you think was agreed to in 2004.

But you are right to think that you will be made a fool of if you parrot what FAUX and GOP hate media say was agreed to in 2004, so you are wise to keep stalling. Maybe someone who has seen my post will PM you with the answer if you just keep stalling.

 

[Stephanie]

Land for peace has always worked SO well in the past

Then conflicts will continue, and that is okay with you. The settlements will not stop as long as BN is in charge. Let's throw some more money at it, that we don't have. That is also okay.

Who the hell does the Obama think he is telling Isarel what they should do, and Libya, and etc etc etc? President of the WORLD.
And how funny you all ARE NOW for NATION BUILDING..

 

[Antiderivative]

Land for peace has always worked SO well in the past

Then conflicts will continue, and that is okay with you. The settlements will not stop as long as BN is in charge. Let's throw some more money at it, that we don't have. That is also okay.

Who the hell does the Obama think he is telling Isarel what they should do, and Libya, and etc etc etc? President of the WORLD.
And how funny you all ARE NOW for NATION BUILDING and PEACE.

He signs off billions of dollars in foreign aid, and think he has a moral obligation to the people who he signs off the aid to.

Obama isn't a radical in doing this. In fact, he is very "Presidential" in doing this. He is not special. He is the norm.

 

[Provocateur]

This thread is full of fail.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

And you have posted into it, how many times?

 

[Provocateur]

It was too full of fail to post more than one time. Sometimes things start poorly and become a partisan train wreck at a rapid pace.

 

[Trajan]

When you admit you have no idea what was promised to Israel in 2004.

no, you are trotting from one google search to the next, its clear, you cannot even comprehend a singular point and are what I call; a google ranger, you're dredging things up willy nilly because you have no historical knowledgeable grasp, thats been evident in the last several pages,if so you would have 'trumped' me already.....( that s peaks to your lack of critical thinking as well) I don't care what you think or not I know.....

I have trumped you already, and obviously google has not helped you find the 2004 agreement. I posted it already at about 8AM this morning in another thread you have posted in, so the burden is on you to say what you think was agreed to in 2004.

But you are right to think that you will be made a fool of if you parrot what FAUX and GOP hate media say was agreed to in 2004, so you are wise to keep stalling. Maybe someone who has seen my post will PM you with the answer if you just keep stalling.

the 2004 doc. is not an 'agreement', I doubt you have even seen what I am referring to, no wonder you're lost.

 

[JimH52]

Talk about Spin. Obama is pretty clear that the current borders should be based on the 67 borders.

He didn't say this was a starting off point. Quite lying.

Do you have comprehension problems? He said the boundary should be "based on" the 67 border. He did not say it should "return to" the 1967 border. Think about it, have a good BM, and come back with a rational statement.

Sorry pal, we all know what he meant... including you.

Obama's position on Israel is pretty clear, he'd just as soon they were gone.. as would most leftists.

So, it is not what he said now, it is what he "meant" Are you a flippin mind reader or something? I am not going to repeat myself again. I suggest you take an English comprehension class.

 

[JimH52]

Land for peace has always worked SO well in the past

Then conflicts will continue, and that is okay with you. The settlements will not stop as long as BN is in charge. Let's throw some more money at it, that we don't have. That is also okay.

Who the hell does the Obama think he is telling Isarel what they should do, and Libya, and etc etc etc? President of the WORLD.
And how funny you all ARE NOW for NATION BUILDING..

I agree. Let's just keep our Billions to cover the deficit and let Israel go it alone.

 

[edthecynic]

no, you are trotting from one google search to the next, its clear, you cannot even comprehend a singular point and are what I call; a google ranger, you're dredging things up willy nilly because you have no historical knowledgeable grasp, thats been evident in the last several pages,if so you would have 'trumped' me already.....( that s peaks to your lack of critical thinking as well) I don't care what you think or not I know.....

I have trumped you already, and obviously google has not helped you find the 2004 agreement. I posted it already at about 8AM this morning in another thread you have posted in, so the burden is on you to say what you think was agreed to in 2004.

But you are right to think that you will be made a fool of if you parrot what FAUX and GOP hate media say was agreed to in 2004, so you are wise to keep stalling. Maybe someone who has seen my post will PM you with the answer if you just keep stalling.

the 2004 doc. is not an 'agreement', I doubt you have even seen what I am referring to, no wonder you're lost.

Well then enlighten me and post what you are talking about so there is no confusion.

Here is what you posted while condescendingly pretending to know what you were talking about:

you do know what was promised to Israel in a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004...right?

BTW, it was Bush's speech that was April 2004, the resolution did not pass the House until June 2004. They both say the same thing, Bush is quoted in the resolution, but I only mention it to show you have no idea what you are talking about and are only parroting others and not working from first hand knowledge.

 

[Trajan]

I have trumped you already, and obviously google has not helped you find the 2004 agreement. I posted it already at about 8AM this morning in another thread you have posted in, so the burden is on you to say what you think was agreed to in 2004.

But you are right to think that you will be made a fool of if you parrot what FAUX and GOP hate media say was agreed to in 2004, so you are wise to keep stalling. Maybe someone who has seen my post will PM you with the answer if you just keep stalling.

the 2004 doc. is not an 'agreement', I doubt you have even seen what I am referring to, no wonder you're lost.

Well then enlighten me and post what you are talking about so there is no confusion.

Here is what you posted while condescendingly pretending to know what you were talking about:

you do know what was promised to Israel in a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004...right?

BTW, it was Bush's speech that was April 2004, the resolution did not pass the House until June 2004. They both say the same thing, Bush is quoted in the resolution, but I only mention to to show you have no idea what you are talking about and are only parroting others and not working from first hand knowledge.

I see you've been back to google....luke warm...and it matters not.

you fail to realize, your argument has died..you do know that right?

 

[edthecynic]

the 2004 doc. is not an 'agreement', I doubt you have even seen what I am referring to, no wonder you're lost.

Well then enlighten me and post what you are talking about so there is no confusion.

Here is what you posted while condescendingly pretending to know what you were talking about:

you do know what was promised to Israel in a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004...right?

BTW, it was Bush's speech that was April 2004, the resolution did not pass the House until June 2004. They both say the same thing, Bush is quoted in the resolution, but I only mention to to show you have no idea what you are talking about and are only parroting others and not working from first hand knowledge.

I see you've been back to google....luke warm...and it matters not.

you fail to realize, your argument has died..you do know that right?

Again I remind you that I posted it at 8AM this morning so I don't have to google what I already know.

The fact remains you do not know what was promised to Israel in 2004, you didn't know it when you made your post, and you STILL don't know it after repeated attempts to google it since the time I called you out on it.

But keep stalling, someone is bound to come to your rescue.

 

[Trajan]

Well then enlighten me and post what you are talking about so there is no confusion.

Here is what you posted while condescendingly pretending to know what you were talking about:


BTW, it was Bush's speech that was April 2004, the resolution did not pass the House until June 2004. They both say the same thing, Bush is quoted in the resolution, but I only mention to to show you have no idea what you are talking about and are only parroting others and not working from first hand knowledge.

I see you've been back to google....luke warm...and it matters not.

you fail to realize, your argument has died..you do know that right?

Again I remind you that I posted it at 8AM this morning so I don't have to google what I already know.

The fact remains you do not know what was promised to Israel in 2004, you didn't know it when you made your post, and you STILL don't know it after repeated attempts to google it since the time I called you out on it.

But keep stalling, someone is bound to come to your rescue.

you fail to realize, your argument has died..you do know that right?


hey wait a minute, do you even know what you are arguing?

 

[edthecynic]

I see you've been back to google....luke warm...and it matters not.

you fail to realize, your argument has died..you do know that right?

Again I remind you that I posted it at 8AM this morning so I don't have to google what I already know.

The fact remains you do not know what was promised to Israel in 2004, you didn't know it when you made your post, and you STILL don't know it after repeated attempts to google it since the time I called you out on it.

But keep stalling, someone is bound to come to your rescue.

you fail to realize, your argument has died..you do know that right?


hey wait a minute, do you even know what you are arguing?

I realize YOU wish it were dead.
I realize you do not know what was promised to Israel in 2004.
And I realize you can't follow an argument.

 

[Trajan]

I posted a map and reasoning, your problem now is, you have pigeon holed the argument and I no longer care.

frankly it matters not what bush and Sharon exchanged in 04.....get the hint dopey?

anyway, obama was clearly referring to pre 67....logic is not your friend.

ttfn