Obama officially turns back on Isreal.

[California Girl]

Israel doesn't want to play 'swapsies' with the Palastinians. The ******* Arabs started the '67 war. They lost. Un-*******-lucky.... 'to the victor, the spoils'. If the Arabs don't like it, maybe they should have thought of that before they started a war.

**** Obama for throwing Israel under a bus. That man has no ******* loyalty.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Israel doesn't want to play 'swapsies' with the Palastinians. The ******* Arabs started the '67 war. They lost. Un-*******-lucky.... 'to the victor, the spoils'. If the Arabs don't like it, maybe they should have thought of that before they started a war.

**** Obama for throwing Israel under a bus. That man has no ******* loyalty.

I agree 100%

 

[California Girl]

Israel doesn't want to play 'swapsies' with the Palastinians. The ******* Arabs started the '67 war. They lost. Un-*******-lucky.... 'to the victor, the spoils'. If the Arabs don't like it, maybe they should have thought of that before they started a war.

**** Obama for throwing Israel under a bus. That man has no ******* loyalty.

I agree 100%

I don't know why we're surprised... he threw his own country under the bus.

 

[daveman]

Gee, the CON$ sure ran away from this thread in a hurry!!!

Really?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You're right. It's a delusion fueled by irrational hatred.

Seriously, it is true. If Israel had any land there would be a border to define where that land is. When the foreigners declared themselves to be the state of Israel in Palestine with no legal standing to do so, they declared the resolution 181 proposed borders.

Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security council. Many believe that the UN created Israel. It did not. It did not partition Palestine and it gave Israel no land. The 181 borders are recognized by nobody, not even Israel.

The 1967 borders, or green line, were drawn by the 1949 UN armistice agreements. They were specifically not to be borders. The armistice agreements recognized no land or borders for Israel. The 1948 war was called by UN Security Council resolution. Nobody lost that war.

Jews have always been in what is now called Israel. they have been there for 3000 years.

That is correct, however, the indigenous Jews of Palestine opposed the Zionist takeover of Palestine.

 

[MikeK]

The US should certainly seek Al Qaidas approval before conducting it's foreign policy.

A well-known component of the Islamic mentality holds that a friend of their enemy is their enemy. Therefore by assuming the role of Israel's foremost supportive friend we have taken a demonstratedly lethal enemy upon ourselves for no good reason.

A more sensible and politically relevant way of expressing what you've posted above would be to say the U.S. should abandon a policy that unnecessarily provokes the rage of Middle Eastern sects whose members are capable of suicidally motivated terrorist attacks. The implication in your comment makes absolutely no sense unless it is prefaced by a substantive reason why the U.S. should continue supporting Israel at great expense to us in terms of blood and treasure.

The United States is under no obligation to compromise the safety of its citizens by antogonizing Israel's historic enemies. Our internal political structure must be closely examined to determine the reason for our inordinately motivated support of the nation of Israel thus far.

 

[edthecynic]

Gee, the CON$ sure ran away from this thread in a hurry!!!

Really?

Really!
That post was from another thread that was merged with this thread.
The CON$ abandoned the thread that that post was made in after the below post. I'm sure even you can see why!

Obama: Palestinian State Must Be Based on 1967 Borders - FoxNews.com

What a piece of work, if I where Isreal I would throw up the big F.U. sign and carry on with my business. We will make relations better with Isreal after 2012 is over with. This president is embarrassing.

Oh come on!!!! Everybody with a brain knows FAUX are pathological liars, but there are still people stupid enough to believe them!!!

They open your link with an obvious lie in the second paragraph. But it is not obvious to CON$!

Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders.

Not only did the pathological liars truncate the quote leaving out the "mutually agreed swaps" they also added the "PRE-" to the 1967.
Here's what Obama actually said:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/mideast...script-of-obama-s-middle-east-speech-1.363035

Full transcript of Obama's Middle East speech - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states.

But that wasn't enough lying for the premeditated liars at FAUX, they then changed the 2004 commitment from "armistice lines of 1949" to "1967 lines."
The quote from your FAUX link:

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004. ... Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines."

The actual 2004 commitment:

Bush Press Conference with PM Sharon (4/14/2004)
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the parties, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Seriously, it is true. If Israel had any land there would be a border to define where that land is. When the foreigners declared themselves to be the state of Israel in Palestine with no legal standing to do so, they declared the resolution 181 proposed borders.

Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security council. Many believe that the UN created Israel. It did not. It did not partition Palestine and it gave Israel no land. The 181 borders are recognized by nobody, not even Israel.

The 1967 borders, or green line, were drawn by the 1949 UN armistice agreements. They were specifically not to be borders. The armistice agreements recognized no land or borders for Israel. The 1948 war was called by UN Security Council resolution. Nobody lost that war.

Jews have always been in what is now called Israel. they have been there for 3000 years.

That is correct, however, the indigenous Jews of Palestine opposed the Zionist takeover of Palestine.

and who are the "indigenous Jews of Palestine"?

 

[daveman]

Gee, the CON$ sure ran away from this thread in a hurry!!!

Really?

Really!
That post was from another thread that was merged with this thread.
The CON$ abandoned the thread that that post was made in after the below post. I'm sure even you can see why!

Oh come on!!!! Everybody with a brain knows FAUX are pathological liars, but there are still people stupid enough to believe them!!!

They open your link with an obvious lie in the second paragraph. But it is not obvious to CON$!
Not only did the pathological liars truncate the quote leaving out the "mutually agreed swaps" they also added the "PRE-" to the 1967.
Here's what Obama actually said:

But that wasn't enough lying for the premeditated liars at FAUX, they then changed the 2004 commitment from "armistice lines of 1949" to "1967 lines."
The quote from your FAUX link:
The actual 2004 commitment:

[URL="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/BushSharon0404.html"]Bush Press Conference with PM Sharon (4/14/2004)

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the parties, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

Sooo...some people are smart enough to see there's another thread on the same topic, and you want to claim you scared them off.

Uh huh.

 

[edthecynic]

Really?

Really!
That post was from another thread that was merged with this thread.
The CON$ abandoned the thread that that post was made in after the below post. I'm sure even you can see why!

Oh come on!!!! Everybody with a brain knows FAUX are pathological liars, but there are still people stupid enough to believe them!!!

They open your link with an obvious lie in the second paragraph. But it is not obvious to CON$!
Not only did the pathological liars truncate the quote leaving out the "mutually agreed swaps" they also added the "PRE-" to the 1967.
Here's what Obama actually said:

But that wasn't enough lying for the premeditated liars at FAUX, they then changed the 2004 commitment from "armistice lines of 1949" to "1967 lines."
The quote from your FAUX link:
The actual 2004 commitment:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/mideast...script-of-obama-s-middle-east-speech-1.363035

Sooo...some people are smart enough to see there's another thread on the same topic, and you want to claim you scared them off.

Uh huh.

You are obviously too scared to address the points in the post!!!

There were only 4 posts in the thread before the merge, but there were nearly 200 views, so yes the CON$ who read the thread were too scared to address the points in my post, just like you. They chose to run to a similar thread where they could address many tangents and avoid the fact that they were made into stupid SUCKERS by FAUX yet again.

 

[daveman]

Really!
That post was from another thread that was merged with this thread.
The CON$ abandoned the thread that that post was made in after the below post. I'm sure even you can see why!

Sooo...some people are smart enough to see there's another thread on the same topic, and you want to claim you scared them off.

Uh huh.

You are obviously too scared to address the points in the post!!!

There were only 4 posts in the thread before the merge, but there were nearly 200 views, so yes the CON$ who read the thread were too scared to address the points in my post, just like you. They chose to run to a similar thread where they could address many tangents and avoid the fact that they were made into stupid SUCKERS by FAUX yet again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really!
That post was from another thread that was merged with this thread.
The CON$ abandoned the thread that that post was made in after the below post. I'm sure even you can see why!

Sooo...some people are smart enough to see there's another thread on the same topic, and you want to claim you scared them off.

Uh huh.

You are obviously too scared to address the points in the post!!!

There were only 4 posts in the thread before the merge, but there were nearly 200 views, so yes the CON$ who read the thread were too scared to address the points in my post, just like you. They chose to run to a similar thread where they could address many tangents and avoid the fact that they were made into stupid SUCKERS by FAUX yet again.

No one is scared of you mini mouse.

 

[edthecynic]

Sooo...some people are smart enough to see there's another thread on the same topic, and you want to claim you scared them off.

Uh huh.

You are obviously too scared to address the points in the post!!!

There were only 4 posts in the thread before the merge, but there were nearly 200 views, so yes the CON$ who read the thread were too scared to address the points in my post, just like you. They chose to run to a similar thread where they could address many tangents and avoid the fact that they were made into stupid SUCKERS by FAUX yet again.

Sooo...some people are smart enough to see there's another thread on the same topic, and you want to claim you scared them off.

Uh huh.

You are obviously too scared to address the points in the post!!!

There were only 4 posts in the thread before the merge, but there were nearly 200 views, so yes the CON$ who read the thread were too scared to address the points in my post, just like you. They chose to run to a similar thread where they could address many tangents and avoid the fact that they were made into stupid SUCKERS by FAUX yet again.

No one is scared of you mini mouse.

Again, you two are too scared to address the OBVIOUS lies in the FAUX article, so you continue to try to derail the topic, which is why the mod merged the thread here in the first place.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are obviously too scared to address the points in the post!!!

There were only 4 posts in the thread before the merge, but there were nearly 200 views, so yes the CON$ who read the thread were too scared to address the points in my post, just like you. They chose to run to a similar thread where they could address many tangents and avoid the fact that they were made into stupid SUCKERS by FAUX yet again.

You are obviously too scared to address the points in the post!!!

There were only 4 posts in the thread before the merge, but there were nearly 200 views, so yes the CON$ who read the thread were too scared to address the points in my post, just like you. They chose to run to a similar thread where they could address many tangents and avoid the fact that they were made into stupid SUCKERS by FAUX yet again.

No one is scared of you mini mouse.

Again, you two are too scared to address the OBVIOUS lies in the FAUX article, so you continue to try to derail the topic, which is why the mod merged the thread here in the first place.

Who's running? Here's my last post from another thread reguarding the same topic, that you have yet to respond to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3666077-post61.html

 

[daveman]

Again, you two are too scared to address the OBVIOUS lies in the FAUX article, so you continue to try to derail the topic, which is why the mod merged the thread here in the first place.

Yawn.

 

[edthecynic]

No one is scared of you mini mouse.

Again, you two are too scared to address the OBVIOUS lies in the FAUX article, so you continue to try to derail the topic, which is why the mod merged the thread here in the first place.

Who's running? Here's my last post from another thread reguarding the same topic, that you have yet to respond to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3666077-post61.html

Again you try to divert from the Lies of the FAUX article.
Thank you.

There was no need to, the very quotes in that post expose your lie better than anything I could say again. Why do you think everyone is as stupid as you and can't see for themselves what you changed simply by reading the quotes in the post???

 

[edthecynic]

Again, you two are too scared to address the OBVIOUS lies in the FAUX article, so you continue to try to derail the topic, which is why the mod merged the thread here in the first place.

Yawn.

Again you run terrified from addressing the lies in the FAUX article.
Thank you.

 

[MikeK]

Jillian, if Obama gets a 2nd term, where he doesn't need to appease votes anymore. Expect the most aggressive President ever against Israel!

It's not that Obama is against Israel.

He just want's to broker a fair and just settlement between Palestine and Israel once and for all.

Israel will have to finally face reality that everything can't go their way.

He knows that America is only gathering ill will by totally backing Israel in this conflict.

And it's time for the U.S. to be a true arbitrator in any settlement.

Because we don't need this problem to continue for another 60 years.

Of course you're thinking in the right direction. But the animosity that exists between Jews and Moslems has festered for millenia and there is no way that a peaceful accord can exist between Israel and the Arab world for longer than a few months. It is a cats and dogs situation.

The U.S. needs to mind its own business and let Israel deal with its own problems. And, once again, those Americans who are motivated to support Israel in its struggle against the Arabs should migrate to Israel and either join the IDF or do something else to aid the effort.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, you two are too scared to address the OBVIOUS lies in the FAUX article, so you continue to try to derail the topic, which is why the mod merged the thread here in the first place.

Who's running? Here's my last post from another thread reguarding the same topic, that you have yet to respond to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3666077-post61.html

Again you try to divert from the Lies of the FAUX article.
Thank you.

There was no need to, the very quotes in that post expose your lie better than anything I could say again. Why do you think everyone is as stupid as you and can't see for themselves what you changed simply by reading the quotes in the post???

right sure I did. Anything Faux was your victory lap.

 

[edthecynic]

Who's running? Here's my last post from another thread reguarding the same topic, that you have yet to respond to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3666077-post61.html

Again you try to divert from the Lies of the FAUX article.
Thank you.

There was no need to, the very quotes in that post expose your lie better than anything I could say again. Why do you think everyone is as stupid as you and can't see for themselves what you changed simply by reading the quotes in the post???

right sure I did. Anything Faux was your victory lap.

Still you can't rebut my exposing the obvious lies of the FAUX article.

And if you still want me to continue making a fool of you in the other thread, I will over there.