Palestinian animals blow up civilian bus in Jerusalem

[P F Tinmore]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

Good point. What state did Egypt and Jordan occupy between '48 and '67?

Why are the West Bank and Gaza universally called the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

 

[Hollie]

Why should the Terrorist Palestine's be treated any different that we treated the terrorist Algerians? We kill them until they stop terrorising. It is that simple.

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

You're befuddled regarding some point you're hoping to make with false analogies. The so-called "oppression" afflicting the arabs-moslems occupying the disputed territories is of their own making. Multiple opportunities for peaceful coexistence have been rejected by the Arabs-Moslems. If you knew anything of the Hamas Charter, you would understand that such a statement of islamo- supremacy leaves no room for negotiation.

How can the analogy possibly be false? It is an exact analogy.

Are you saying that the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are not being oppressed.

My question though is why would it be expected that the Palestinians behave differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians or the non-whites of South Africa?

False analogy. The Hamas Charter is not about "resistance". It is about islamo-fascism.

The question is: "why would you expect the Israelis, under constant attack from Arab-Moslem aggressors to not respond with force of arms to those attacks"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

You're befuddled regarding some point you're hoping to make with false analogies. The so-called "oppression" afflicting the arabs-moslems occupying the disputed territories is of their own making. Multiple opportunities for peaceful coexistence have been rejected by the Arabs-Moslems. If you knew anything of the Hamas Charter, you would understand that such a statement of islamo- supremacy leaves no room for negotiation.

How can the analogy possibly be false? It is an exact analogy.

Are you saying that the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are not being oppressed.

My question though is why would it be expected that the Palestinians behave differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians or the non-whites of South Africa?

False analogy. The Hamas Charter is not about "resistance". It is about islamo-fascism.

The question is: "why would you expect the Israelis, under constant attack from Arab-Moslem aggressors to not respond with force of arms to those attacks"?

Indeed, Israel must defend its colonial project.

 

[Mindful]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

It makes no difference if there was or was not a sovereign state prior to occupation. Just inhabitants matter.

For example, there was no sovereign multi-cultural ruled state of South Africa and the Algerians were ruled by the Ottomans prior to the French.

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

 

[montelatici]

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

You're befuddled regarding some point you're hoping to make with false analogies. The so-called "oppression" afflicting the arabs-moslems occupying the disputed territories is of their own making. Multiple opportunities for peaceful coexistence have been rejected by the Arabs-Moslems. If you knew anything of the Hamas Charter, you would understand that such a statement of islamo- supremacy leaves no room for negotiation.

How can the analogy possibly be false? It is an exact analogy.

Are you saying that the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are not being oppressed.

My question though is why would it be expected that the Palestinians behave differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians or the non-whites of South Africa?

False analogy. The Hamas Charter is not about "resistance". It is about islamo-fascism.

The question is: "why would you expect the Israelis, under constant attack from Arab-Moslem aggressors to not respond with force of arms to those attacks"?

I expect the Israelis to respond against violent resistance by the Palestinians. That was not the issue.

I am simply asking a question as to why many people that support Israel expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-white South Africans and most any other national or ethnic liberation group.

 

[Mindful]

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

You're befuddled regarding some point you're hoping to make with false analogies. The so-called "oppression" afflicting the arabs-moslems occupying the disputed territories is of their own making. Multiple opportunities for peaceful coexistence have been rejected by the Arabs-Moslems. If you knew anything of the Hamas Charter, you would understand that such a statement of islamo- supremacy leaves no room for negotiation.

How can the analogy possibly be false? It is an exact analogy.

Are you saying that the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are not being oppressed.

My question though is why would it be expected that the Palestinians behave differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians or the non-whites of South Africa?

False analogy. The Hamas Charter is not about "resistance". It is about islamo-fascism.

The question is: "why would you expect the Israelis, under constant attack from Arab-Moslem aggressors to not respond with force of arms to those attacks"?

Indeed, Israel must defend its colonial project.

Which is?

 

[Hollie]

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

You're befuddled regarding some point you're hoping to make with false analogies. The so-called "oppression" afflicting the arabs-moslems occupying the disputed territories is of their own making. Multiple opportunities for peaceful coexistence have been rejected by the Arabs-Moslems. If you knew anything of the Hamas Charter, you would understand that such a statement of islamo- supremacy leaves no room for negotiation.

How can the analogy possibly be false? It is an exact analogy.

Are you saying that the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are not being oppressed.

My question though is why would it be expected that the Palestinians behave differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians or the non-whites of South Africa?

False analogy. The Hamas Charter is not about "resistance". It is about islamo-fascism.

The question is: "why would you expect the Israelis, under constant attack from Arab-Moslem aggressors to not respond with force of arms to those attacks"?

Indeed, Israel must defend its colonial project.

Indeed. Indeed Israel must defend itself from Arab-Moslem terrorists.

Now would be a good time to post your islamo- score card detailing the number of dead Arabs-Moslems as a result of Arab-Moslem terrorist attacks. It makes islamo's so proud to parade their dead. Meanwhile, your islamo-hero kingpins are making themselves vast wealth off the dead and soon-to-be dead.

 

[montelatici]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

It makes no difference if there was or was not a sovereign state prior to occupation. Just inhabitants matter.

For example, there was no sovereign multi-cultural ruled state of South Africa and the Algerians were ruled by the Ottomans prior to the French.

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

 

[Mindful]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

 

[Hollie]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

It makes no difference if there was or was not a sovereign state prior to occupation. Just inhabitants matter.

For example, there was no sovereign multi-cultural ruled state of South Africa and the Algerians were ruled by the Ottomans prior to the French.

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

 

[montelatici]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

 

[montelatici]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

It makes no difference if there was or was not a sovereign state prior to occupation. Just inhabitants matter.

For example, there was no sovereign multi-cultural ruled state of South Africa and the Algerians were ruled by the Ottomans prior to the French.

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

You mean presenting the facts with sources. Something you know little about.

 

[Roudy]

Why should the Terrorist Palestine's be treated any different that we treated the terrorist Algerians? We kill them until they stop terrorising. It is that simple.

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

False analogy.

How can the analogy be false? Just saying so doesn't make it so. They are perfect analogies.

The analogy is false because the US and Western nations have designated Hamas and many other Palestinian groups who carry out such horrific acts as terrorist.

Yet he keeps asking "why should anyone behave any differently" after a Palestinian animal commits an unconscionable act of blowing up a busload of people.

Of course , it's quite strange to an antisemite, so he keeps asking, "why shouldn't Arab Muslims have the right to slaughter Jews?" Ha ha ha.

 

[Mindful]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

It makes no difference if there was or was not a sovereign state prior to occupation. Just inhabitants matter.

For example, there was no sovereign multi-cultural ruled state of South Africa and the Algerians were ruled by the Ottomans prior to the French.

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

You mean presenting the facts with sources. Something you know little about.

Is that all you've got?

 

[Mindful]

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

False analogy.

How can the analogy be false? Just saying so doesn't make it so. They are perfect analogies.

The analogy is false because the US and Western nations have designated Hamas and many other Palestinian groups who carry out such horrific acts as terrorist.

Yet he keeps asking "why should anyone behave any differently" after a Palestinian animal commits an unconscionable act of blowing up a busload of people.

Of course , it's quite strange to an antisemite, so he keeps asking, "why shouldn't Arab Muslims have the right to slaughter Jews?" Ha ha ha.

That last bit is what it's all about with him. He doesn't do a very convincing job of covering it up.

 

[montelatici]

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

False analogy.

How can the analogy be false? Just saying so doesn't make it so. They are perfect analogies.

The analogy is false because the US and Western nations have designated Hamas and many other Palestinian groups who carry out such actions as terrorist.

Yet he keeps asking "why should anyone behave any differently" when a Palestinian animal commits an unconscionable act of blowing up a bus load of people. Of course it's quite strange to an antisemite, so he keeps asking, "why shouldn't Arab Muslims have the right to slaughter Jews?" Ha ha ha.

The IRA, the ANC, the FLN and the Tamil Tigers were designated as terrorist groups. Mandela was deemed a terrorist by the U.S. until recently.

Again, my question is:

Why would supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than these other groups?

It has nothing to do with the slaughter of anyone, it is a simple question that no one is able to answer.

 

[Mindful]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

 

[Roudy]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

Good point. What state did Egypt and Jordan occupy between '48 and '67?

Why are the West Bank and Gaza universally called the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

It wasn't the Palestinian state, there never was one, dufus. But interesting you bring that up since the all the attacks on Israel by the Arabs were never to create this fictional Palestine. It was to destroy the Jewish state and divide the proceeds among the Arabs. And no time during these 20 years that Egyptians and Jordanians occupied the West Bank and Gaza did anybody including the so called Palestinians, mention or bring up this false "Palestine". Now why is that? It's an invented name for an invented people.

 

[montelatici]

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

False analogy.

How can the analogy be false? Just saying so doesn't make it so. They are perfect analogies.

The analogy is false because the US and Western nations have designated Hamas and many other Palestinian groups who carry out such horrific acts as terrorist.

Yet he keeps asking "why should anyone behave any differently" after a Palestinian animal commits an unconscionable act of blowing up a busload of people.

Of course , it's quite strange to an antisemite, so he keeps asking, "why shouldn't Arab Muslims have the right to slaughter Jews?" Ha ha ha.

That last bit is what it's all about with him. He doesn't do a very convincing job of covering it up.

Why do Zionist types always resort to personal attacks rather than addressing the questions posed. You are not able to answer the quaestion as to why you expect the Palestinians to behave differently than other people in their situation, then when you claim the Palestinians are not in the same situation as the Algerians, the Irish Catholics, the non-white South Africans or the Tamils, you cannot articulate a single difference.

 

[Mindful]

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

False analogy.

How can the analogy be false? Just saying so doesn't make it so. They are perfect analogies.

The analogy is false because the US and Western nations have designated Hamas and many other Palestinian groups who carry out such horrific acts as terrorist.

Yet he keeps asking "why should anyone behave any differently" after a Palestinian animal commits an unconscionable act of blowing up a busload of people.

Of course , it's quite strange to an antisemite, so he keeps asking, "why shouldn't Arab Muslims have the right to slaughter Jews?" Ha ha ha.

That last bit is what it's all about with him. He doesn't do a very convincing job of covering it up.

Why do Zionist types always resort to personal attacks rather than addressing the questions posed. You are not able to answer the quaestion as to why you expect the Palestinians to behave differently than other people in their situation, then when you claim the Palestinians are not in the same situation as the Algerians, the Irish Catholics, the non-white South Africans or the Tamils, you cannot articulate a single difference.

Nothing to expect. Why do you bother?

Zionist types? Oh you mean Jews? Now you do give the game away.