Reply With Quote
Well put. Worked for them. It was de able then, don't know why it shouldn't be de able now.
Well the Zionist terror groups got what they wanted, a state. Their leaders became PMs of Israel and stuff.
Well put. Worked for them. It was de able then, don't know why it shouldn't be de able now.
Indeed. One can say any stupid that springs to mind on the internet, regardless of whether it passes the barest of common sense tests.
Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?
Still waiting on this one. A simple yes or no will suffice.
The Arabs have been offered a state of their own on several occasions. They rejected each proposal and responded with violence.
Are you suggesting the U.N. par ion of 1947 was in response to Zionist violence? In that proposal, the two states shared the land almost 50/50, with a bit more going to the Arabs than the Jews.
The Jews accepted the proposal. The Arabs declared war. By defeating the 5 armies assembled against Israel, by the Arab League, I would suggest they won rights to the entire territory by right of conquest. That they've continued to try and negotiate with the Arabs in good faith is a testament to their willingness to compromise.
The Arabs attacked again in 1967 and got their asses handed back to them. Israel took parts of Egypt, including Gaza. That they returned the Sinai is a testament to their willingness to compromise and find a solution.
On at least two occasions since then, a two-state solution has been negotiated and brokered; the Israelis accept, the Arabs reject. In one case they start an intifada. In the most recent case, they just walk away and continue ing...leading up to the unilateral decision to try and extort statehood from the U.N. saying it's that or they will keep killing Jews. Of course, in demanding statehood, they also say they'll never accept a Jewish state so, in effect, even if they gave the Arabs a state, they'd still continue killing Jews.
Name one time the Arab "Palestinians" have been sincerely engaged in any negotiation for a two-state solution?
What's more problematic is making the connection between deep ocean temperatures and the effects that has on global warming.
This "deep sea heat trapping" wasn't proposed as a possible reason that global temperatures weren't reaching the heights predicted by the global warming models until they needed a reason to explain why global temperatures weren't reaching the heights predicted by the global warming models.
If he models fail again, in the future, they'll find something else to explain it.
Tell, what is the ideal global temperature and why is warming worse than global cooling?
"why is warming worse than global cooling"
who said it was? other than your straw man.
Either one, extreme enough, is disastrous for human civilization. The mini-Ice Age a few 100 years ago in Europe was a disaster, even without the Black Plague.
Worked for Israel's terror groups. You basically were for it before you were against it. Which is ok btw, there's nothing wrong with changing your mind. It just comes across as hypocritical, that's all.
Who says it worked for the Israelis? First of all, I don't buy that Jewish terrorism ever reached the level and garnered the support that Arab terrorist groups have managed over the past 100 years.
The U.N. offered a two-state solution in 1947; the Jews accepted it and set about building a nation in the areas allotted them. The Arabs rejected it and the Arab League declared war.
And, if your denouncing a century-old Jewish violence, where's your outrage over nearly a century of continuous Arab violence against the Jews?
So, what's your solution? How does Israel stop the Arab violence?
They obtained a state. Some of the leaders of those terror groups ended up being Israel PM. Looks like it worked for them.
Why isn't the attacks from said terror groups against Arabs and the British in the video?
And I *AM* outraged at the Arab violence against Israel. I said I don't condone terror violence, now or back then.
Probably because the person making the video disagrees with the characterization they were terrorists. But, more importantly, it's not germane to the position that the legitimate international body that had jurisdiction over the Mandate, created the state of Israel and offered the Arabs a Palestinian State.
Why did the Arabs declare war in 1947?
Why did they attack again in 1967?
Why do they have any claim to any of the territory after losing both wars?
How does any of this legitimize the acts terrorism by Arabs after decisively losing two wars over the territory?
What is your solution?
So you're saying that if some Arab makes a Palestinian video and doesn't include Hamas because he doesn't consider them a terror group, you'll be ok with that line of history?
You're too easy to convince when it suits you.
There might not be a workable solution. Seeing the decades of conflict, it's fairly obvious that there's no silver bullet or even band aid. In that vein, and seeing that Israel has dealt with this problem for long enough, I trust they know what they're doing.
I'd like to see that video.
What would be your solution?
I'd like to see the video you posted with the complete history.
I personally don't think there's a solution. I think violence will only end when one side gets wiped (or Israel leaves). I don't see either as a real solution or likely to happen without severe consequences to the other side, which is why it hasn't happened, and very likely won't happen. So I think Israel is doing a good job in minimizing the violence, which isn't a solution, but something they can do.
How does adding your claimed omissions change any of the video from 1947 forward?
If Israel believes they're going to be nuked or, they are nuked, we're all ed.
So, do you believe Arab violence, since 1947, is legitimate?
As pro-terror back then, you should know that the Deir Yassin massacre happened in April 1948.
I don't think Israel thinks they're going to get nuked. I also think Israel can defend itself and doesn't need us at all. They're armed a whole lot better than any surrounding country and have a very fine intelligence service.
Nope. I don't know how many times I have to say I don't condone terror violence, either by Israel terror groups or any other group, at any time.
I think it was de able then, and it's still de able today.
That I hate it doesn't mean that it didn't work for Israel though.
What ever happened in Deir Yassin, it was due to the Arab Blockade of Jerusalem and their proclivity to garrison fighters alongside women and children.
That's why they've taken out nuclear facilities in Syria and Iran. And, that's why they've been seeking assistance in taking out Iran's second attempt to go nuclear? I see.
Thanks to a long relationship with the United States.
So, what should be done with the Palestinian Terrorists today? What should bee done with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah? What should be done with their terrorist benefactors, Syria and Iran?
Should the United Nations just continue to ignore the terrorism while issuing condemnation, after condemnation, of Israel for incidents that occur while they defend themselves?
Then, it worked for the Arabs too. They were just stupid and rejected -- and continue to reject -- the offer of a state.
What's the solution?
Not really. It was a terror attack that left hundreds, including women and children dead. Unprovoked. That's why it's called a massacre.
But it's good that you accept being pro-terror. Which really makes you a huge hypocrite.
Looks like they've done what they needed to do. Exactly what I said.
lol reckoning
Exactly. That's why the US doesn't need to be in the region at all.
If it would be easy to tell who the terrorists are, then I'm sure Israel would've done something about it. Instead, they've contained violence, which is something they can do.
You still have to demonstrate that Israel's policy is a failed policy.
I don't agree that the UN ignores terrorism. I also think the UN rightly issues condemnation when excessive force is used on civilians. You don't really have to like it.
The fact that you think there has to be a solution right now doesn't make it true. There's currently no credible threat to Israel existence, and whenever there might have been, Israel acted on it.
Looks like, unlike you, they know what they're doing.
No doubt about it now.
Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?
Still waiting on this one. A simple yes or no will suffice.
This post is yet another indictment of the state of science education in this country.
Science is advanced my making hypotheses, gathering data, and testing that data against those hypotheses. That is the definition of good science.
The answer to my question, is yes, it is fully possible to test the scientists model by collecting data. You didn't answer that obvious question, because it put your entire statement that they are somehow trying to make the theory of AGW some undebunkable dogma as complete bull .
Your entire response to that question flies in the face of good science. Good science and good scientists changs theories as data is aquired. That is NOT the sign of some sinister plot. That is how science works.
As for your questions, they are irrelevant red herrings. That you seem to think they mean something is a further indictment of your flawed thinking processes.
There is no "ideal" global temerature.
and
Warming is not inherently "worse" than cooling, to my knowledge.
Maybe you can expand a bit on why it is you think these bull questions are actually relevant. Do tell.
Liberals and Democrats trying to not be racist by being racist FTW!
RG, we've been told the science has been settled on Anthropogenic Global Climate Change for years now. All of a sudden, when the temperature doesn't match the model; the scientists who have been telling us the science is settled, start scrambling to find an excuse. Heat trapping is convenient.
What will it be next time empirical evidence challenges the "settled science" of the global warming religion?
Sorry, your position has lost all credibility. Just look at how the "settled science" is being viewed by the global community. You're full of .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
