Reply With Quote
yoni the victim..poor guy
Why are you allowing ChumpDumper to butt you into repeating his nonsense? I can definitively point to your post and say, you're a troll. What did "And army boners" add to the thread?So why are you all?
I can conceivably say you're the troll.
And, starting a thread that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the left's "racism" charge against people that don't like Barack Obama's policies and actions, as President, doesn't make me obsessed with black people.
You can conceivably say anything. That doesn't make it so.
yoni the victim..poor guy
Don't cry for me, I'm fine.yoni the victim..poor guy
then stop complaining you whiner
I didn't start the trolling and I'm not sure you understand the term "whining."
I've continued to post on the issues while calling out ChumpDumper, and his butt boy ElNono, for trolling me. Contrary to being upset, I'm kind of flattered that poster, I once considered reasonable (no, CD, never you), are reduced to ad hominem attacks and ChumpDumper like trolling.
Are you getting ready to join their ranks?
I'm concurring with his assessment that you stress over re ed stuff.
This thread is further proof of that.
Not my problem if you have him on ignore and you can read the quotes.
I won't stop trolling you when you make ridiculous unsubstantiated claims..and then fail to defend them when called out..
now where is the data that supports your claim that the large majority of liberals blame critcism of obama on racism?
I hope y'all have a wonderful life together. Really.
Thank you.
Hey, I don't need to see what you and Chump do in private. But, seriously, I hope y'all are happy.Thank you.
I don't know Chump anymore than I know you.
This must be new to you, but it's ok to agree with somebody else even if it's not part of your team.
Your thoughts Yoni?
My thoughts are in the thread where that topic was discussed.
Damn, yoni sure is ignoring me.
I have actually. Many of them and aced a course at UT on this exact subject. You clearly have no idea about the history other than what you've been told and know it. Coming from a man to another man, buck up, read a little, and know about what you talk about before speaking.
Was the land currently home to the "Palestinians," Israelis, and Jordanians, under the control of the Ottoman empire for roughly 500 years before the empire was dismantled after WWI? Yes or No?
Did the League of Nations take control of the area through their "Mandate for Palestine?" Yes or No?
Did the 1917 Balfour Declaration support the establishment of a Jewish home in the land and, further, declare non-Jewish inhabitants shall retain their religious and civil rights? Yes or No?
Did the 1917 Balfour Declaration give all citizens more rights than had been enjoyed under Ottoman rule? Yes or No?
Did the 1917 Balfour Declaration encourage immigration, to the land, by Jews? Yes or No?
Did the Arab inhabitants demand a stop to Jewish immigration and did a representative of the Arab people say they would "push the Zionists into the sea or they will push us back into the desert?" Yes or No?
Did Aref Dijani, a "Palestinian" leader from Jerusalem, say it was impossible to live with the Jews and tell the League of Nations that the country would become a river of blood unless they reversed their decision and stop the Jews from immigrating? Yes or No?
When the League of Nations refused to grant the "Palestinian" demand, did they not launch a Jihad, against Jews in Jerusalem in April 1920? Yes or No?
Did a newspaper editor names Arif el Arif say that unless we used force against the Jews they would never be rid of them? Yes or No?
Was the so-called "Nebi Musa" riot the opening salvo in a 90-year effort to reverse the Balfour Declaration? Yes or No?
Did the League of Nations try to assuage and pacify the Arabs by setting aside the Trans-Jordan and making it inaccessible to Jews? Yes or No?
Did "Palestinians" aligned with the Nazis during WWII to limit immigration from Germany to the Mandate territory, resulting in the holocaust? Yes or No?
Did the Jews not offer, to the Peel Commission, to take a small parcel of land if the Arabs would cease their Jihad? Yes or No?
Did the Peel Commission not propose a two-state solution, in 1937, that gave the Palestinians 80% and Jews 20% of the land? Yes or No?
Did the Jews accept that proposal and the Arabs reject it? Yes or No?
Did the U.N. take control after WWII and propose a two-state solution that was divided the territory almost 50/50? Yes or No?
Did the Jews accept the par ion and the Arabs reject it? Yes or No?
Did the 20 member Arab League immediately declare war and send the armies of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq to attack Israel? Yes or No?
Did the Arab League's Secretary General call it a "war of extermination" and a "momentous massacre?" Yes or No?
Did Israel defeat them? Yes or No?
Did Jordan occupy the West Bank for 18 years and deny civil rights to the Palestinians there? Yes or No?
Did Egypt occupy the Gaza strip and deny Palestinians civil rights there? yes or No?
Did the "Palestinians" protest or violently resist the occupation by Egypt or Jordan? Yes or No?
Did President Clinton broker a deal that would have given Palestinians control of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem? Yes or No?
Did Israel agree to the proposal? Yes or No?
Did Yasser Arafat walk out on the negotiations and immediately launch an intifada? Yes or No?
Did Israel completely pull out of Gaza in 2005? Yes or No?
Did the Palestinians immediately destroy a thriving export business, donated in an effort to jump start their economy, and then start launching rockets into Israel? Yes or No?
In 2008, did Ehud Olmert offer the Palestinians a two-state solution that gave them nearly 100% of the land contained by the pre-1967 borders? Yes or No?
Did the Palestinians ignore the offer? Yes or No?
So, what did he leave out? Which of the facts, above, are misrepresented or wrong?
Last edited by Yonivore; 09-25-2011 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Wasn't done...accident submitted
Yes, he left out the attacks from zionist terror groups (Irgun, Lohamei) on the british, the Deir Yassin massacre, etc.
Once upon a time, terror worked for Israel too. I don't condone the terror in the past or the current terror, but history is much more complicated than that.
History isn't that complicated.
There is considerable disagreement over whether the Deir Yassin massacre was that or whether it was a legitimate response to break a blockade of Jerusalem by Palestinians. But, it's safe to say, if the blockade hadn't existed the deaths would not have occurred.
Irgun was a response to Arab refusal to allow Jews to immigrate. Given the Arabs had Hitler on their side, I'm thinking Irgun, operating within the borders of the Mandate, is a legitimate -- if not state-sanctioned -- response. If Arabs hadn't promised a war of extinction and promised to drive the Jews into the Sea, I doubt there would have been a need for the Irgun.
Now, tell me about the Lohamei. That should be interesting.
In any case, you're talking about Israeli violence occurring almost a century ago, at a time when it was commensurate with, or in response to, Arab violence. As time has passed, it is clearly the Arabs who have refused to come to the negotiation table -- which, based on the loss of two wars -- they had no right to even be invited.
The fact remains, Arabs, in Israel (and arguable in Gaza and the West Bank) have absolutely no claim to the land. If ever they did, it was forfeited when they lost the territory in wars of 1948 and 1967. They, or their benefactors (Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, etc... the Arab League), have at various times, over the past 90 years, tried to take the land by force. Israel has successfully repelled every attack. By right of conquest, the land belongs to Israel. That they have traded parcels back, in exchange for peace, does not mean they forfeit sovereignty over the remainder.
The fact remains, Israel has, on several occasions, agreed to or offered a two-state solution that gave Palestinians much more than they deserved...which, in every case, has been rejected by Palestians and, more often than not, resulted in violence against Israel.
The fact remains, the latest leader of the Palestinian Authority has already said they will never recognize a Jewish state.
Who's being intransigent?
Sure it is. Especially that many years. And there's no disagreements about the Deir Yassin massacre after looking at the body count.
Furthermore, violence is violence, now or back then. Also, it wasn't just arabs attacked, but the British too.
Are you a terror supporter now, yoni?
Recorded facts are hard things to refute, eh?
There's no disagreement the Arabs were blockading Jerusalem. The disagreement is over whether or not the killing was wanton or, as is the current case with the de able Palestinians, they garrison their fighters among innocent civilians.
Let's say the violence was commensurate, a century ago, which side has continued the violence in the face of repeated offers of peace?
Nope. Are you going to continue to deny the facts stated in the video?
Yoni absolutely supports terrorism and torture.
Apparently the Bible tells him to.
Not at all. The problem seems to stem from selective memory.
Terror violence is terror violence. You either support it or you don't. Some of those groups were even condemned by jews at the time.
So which is it, yoni? Are you an apologist for terror violence? Do you support it when it's your team doing it?
Apparently.
Who did this?
Which groups still exist and are committing terrorist acts; and, does the existence of those groups, a century ago, give legitimacy to the claims and threats of the Arabs?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
