-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
What's The Club? It's another forum aint it? Man, it's been to bloody long since I was last this active on FST......
Rafi,
Sorry, I thought I said.
It's Billy's forum, where he posts stuff like this.
Quote:
l'd just love to see Israel destroyed, maybe their god will come back and do to them what he has done many times in their history. Israel is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. The Nazis certainly taught them well, there's nothing like a practical demonstration to get the message across. l dread to think what the place would be like today if six million of them weren't killed, they'd be waging war across the whole Middle East.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
:lol: Right JPaul, you did say that before.... It must have been one of those late nights I wasn't paying attention to half of what you wrote.... Never mind, things like that happen...
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
:lol: Right JPaul, you did say that before.... It must have been one of those late nights I wasn't paying attention to half of what you wrote.... Never mind, things like that happen...
You read as much as half of what I post.
Feck, that's more than I read.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLio
Sponsored by the Joint Program for Jewish Education of the State of Israel, the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization.
Now I know you are Anti-Semetic...... :dull:
Took you long enough to drag that up! Anyone who doesn't agree with you is anti semitic are they? Well that's fine.
Now, even I have decided to go off topic for a moment.
Rio,
Since you have arrived to this thread, you have done nothing but flame and spam for no good cause.
Crap, what l've done is expose your lies and bullshit.
You insult members posting their opinions, even if they are the same as yours in some sense.
More crap, your gay friends attacked me, check JPaul's posts, he contributes nothing but spam and trolling, or smartarse Manker, the resident alcoholic who pops in now and then and posts unintelligible crap.
I think it sad that someone farely new to the forum decides to kick-start his forum posts with flames... Your way to the bannage isn't far now..... (well, at least if you keep this up).
So you're going to ban me?
You said I talk crap. Do I? Have you any ISRAELI sources to contradict what I wrote? Nope, only Arab/Muslim ones. That's the easy way to play. Write something Anti-Israeli and about how bad we are etc. And I will soon find an Israeli source saying you are completely wrong.
Well of course you will, all your sources are Israeli, the same ones used to brainwash you.
You see Rio, this is a DISCUSSION forum, not a flaming forum. This here is the seriouse discussion forum, and although you are new and all of that, I still think you have much to learn about online communities and how they work.
How old are you .. 14? l've been on the internet and using bulletin boards and forums since before you were born!
I started this thread out of my own interest, fine, leave it. You saw things weren't going your way and started flaming, just like a little boy who can't get a new car to play with, he will get into a huff for a while, pissing everyone off with tantrums.
Go read your own post sonny, every single thing you have come up with, someone has proved you wrong. You are the one who started the crap, not me. Even your gay mates haven't defended your points, except SnnY, and he admitted he was wrong, and that he only argued for the sake of it.
So, if you still feel like you want to post here, post properly, no flames, even if it's hard for you.
You mean l shouldn't point out the lies you post?
If not, the door (or the link rather) to another page is just above... you are welcome to use it.
As are you.
Rafi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Yup, checked it out completely. Just like anyone could have done. It was so obviously false, the only possible reason you could have done it was to disrupt this thread.
Checked what out, when? What was it l did? Apart from exposing you that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Oh, I must have dreamt what you said about israelis then, and I must have missed when you proved us all wrong and showed us that your links weren't crap and lies.
All l've ever done is ask you to mention something in particular, but you won't, it's all "Zionist crap" " Israeli crap" and other generalisations, you really have nothing to say, you just argue for the sake of it, as you said. If you were really after clarification you would point out what it was you disagreed with, and then give your view, but you've never done that, preferring to troll instead.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
I thought you said that JP was the alcoholic and I was the smackhead.
===
A point I would like to make about this thread is that due to the nature of the conflict, it is very difficult to defend one of the sides absolutely. Rafi is clearly attempting to do this but falls short because some of the Israeli tactics are, and have been, completely abhorrent. Billy is just attacking the Israelis, which is a pretty easy thing to do. I imagine that defending the Palestinian tactics is a much more difficult job, which he hasn't been asked to do.
Further, in trying to counter the Israeli occupation, as they see it, some Palestinians have repeatedly resorted to calculated murder of Israeli civillians.
I can honestly say that I feel sympathy and fury with both groups and find it impossible to come down favourably on one side or the other. Both have been wronged and both have commited outrageous acts of inhumanity.
My point here is that it is easy to stand off and pick holes in either side. As many have done here with Rafi's and subsequently SnnY's points. Sure, some of the land was aquired illegally, under international law, by the Israelis but relocating an entire nation is not an option. Yes, the Israelis have made habitable vast swathes of land that was previously desert and it would appear unfair to give this up. However, concessions have to be made.
What one needs to do, in my opinion, is not be blind to the failings of the side you favour and understand that any compromise is going to involve clauses which you would find completely unpalatable.
This goes to Rafi just as much as Billy.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Go read your own post sonny, every single thing you have come up with, someone has proved you wrong. You are the one who started the crap, not me. Even your gay mates haven't defended your points, except SnnY, and he admitted he was wrong, and that he only argued for the sake of it.
Ah the world you live in must be a very different place.
I admitted I was wrong about one thing, just one thing. Most of what I said still stands.
"Argued for the sake of it" :lol: that would be what you are doing, too bad (for you) that your vile opinions shine through when you attempt to do the serious debate thing, and that all you manage to do now is come off as a sore loser.
Quote:
All l've ever done is ask you to mention something in particular, but you won't, it's all "Zionist crap" " Israeli crap" and other generalisations, you really have nothing to say, you just argue for the sake of it, as you said. If you were really after clarification you would point out what it was you disagreed with, and then give your view, but you've never done that, preferring to troll instead.
But I have pointed out things particular, like the fact that you are using lies and inaccuracies, sites made by people who share your opinion, not sites containing accurate facts, to support your accusations.
Or the fact that you so very obviously refuse to accept that israelis aren't villains. You have, after all, called them thieves, said that they are out to steal all the arabs' land, called them brainwashed, and used the word israeli as an insult.
So, I have pointed out things in particular, and I'm not the only one, you just refuse to accept that.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Yup, checked it out completely. Just like anyone could have done. It was so obviously false, the only possible reason you could have done it was to disrupt this thread.
Checked what out, when? What was it l did? Apart from exposing you that is.
Is it your reading skills which are fading?
YOU posted a site claiming it was supported by Zionist organisations.
YOU claimed I hadn't shecked it out when I called you on it.
Now you claim you've exposed ME?
Do you have a goldfish by any chance, I think you could do with some advice on how to prolong your attention span.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Is it your reading skills which are fading?
YOU posted a site claiming it was supported by Zionist organisations.
Are you talking about this site >> Homeward Bound? << ??
Let me quote from the site ..
Stephanie Glick
Supervisor of Academic Affairs
Jewish University in CyberspacE
Student and Academic Department
World Zionist Organization
And from the bottom of the page ..
Sponsored by the Joint Program for Jewish Education of the State of Israel,
the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization.
The site itself is a history of Zionism using the resources of the Central Zionist Archives.
YOU claimed I hadn't shecked it out when I called you on it.
Now you claim you've exposed ME?
l exposed you for twisting my words to make it look like l was saying something l didn't.
Do you have a goldfish by any chance, I think you could do with some advice on how to prolong your attention span.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I thought you said that JP was the alcoholic and I was the smackhead.
l was stoned, a simple mistake, l apologize.
===
What one needs to do, in my opinion, is not be blind to the failings of the side you favour and understand that any compromise is going to involve clauses which you would find completely unpalatable.
This goes to Rafi just as much as Billy.
l completely agree, and if you check you will see l said atrocities have been commited by both sides, and that both sides have links to terrorism. However, the main gist of this thread has been a series of offhand remarks from Rafi, such as Syria doesn't want the Golan Heights back, and a 5 year old murder of a child is irrelevant, that the Arabs started the 1967 war, that land taken in a war belongs to the victor .. and many more remarks. So it isn't easy to break away from answering these things and strive to be neutral, which l openly admit l'm not, l favour Palestininians because l believe they are the ones who need the greatest consideration.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I admitted I was wrong about one thing, just one thing. Most of what I said still stands.
What bits?
"Argued for the sake of it" :lol: that would be what you are doing, too bad (for you) that your vile opinions shine through when you attempt to do the serious debate thing, and that all you manage to do now is come off as a sore loser.
Your words >> I could just as easily have argued for the palestinians, <<
You also stated that you only posted to argue with me.
But I have pointed out things particular, like the fact that you are using lies and inaccuracies, sites made by people who share your opinion, not sites containing accurate facts, to support your accusations.
You have never pointed out anything in particular, you just accuse me of using lies and inaccuracies, you have been unable to provide one lie and refute it, or one inaccuracy with different data.
Or the fact that you so very obviously refuse to accept that israelis aren't villains. You have, after all, called them thieves, said that they are out to steal all the arabs' land, called them brainwashed, and used the word israeli as an insult.
l called the Israelis who occupied Palestinian lands thieves, as have other people on here, l don't see you arguing with them.
So, I have pointed out things in particular, and I'm not the only one, you just refuse to accept that.
See above.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
[QUOTE=RioDeLeo]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I admitted I was wrong about one thing, just one thing. Most of what I said still stands.
What bits?
Everything but the percentage of innocent settlers, and let's face it, there still are innocent settlers.
Quote:
Your words >> I could just as easily have argued for the palestinians, <<
You also stated that you only posted to argue with me.
Where? :lol: I never stated that, I stated that I stayed on because you made me. Should I not have answered your post, so you could say I didn't have a response?
I said I could have argued for both sides, that doesn't mean no one should argue on the israeli side, or that I don't care about them. Just as I care about the palestinians.
Unlike you, who I'm pretty sure don't care about anyone.
Quote:
You have never pointed out anything in particular, you just accuse me of using lies and inaccuracies, you have been unable to provide one lie and refute it, or one inaccuracy with different data.
I thought I just did, again, by stating that the sites you use to prove the bulk of your posts are, quite obviously, not reliable, also, that last one doesn't really say a thing about what you've claimed about present Israel, or israeli zionists today, which makes it even stranger.
Anyhow, the fact that there are no credible sites claiming the same things you've posted about, for example zionism in Israel, is a pretty sure sign it isn't real. If there were, I'm sure you'd have posted that instead.
Like lynx said, it's easy to google for the "facts" you want, that doesn't mean a thing if you don't make sure they actually are facts.
Quote:
l called the Israelis who occupied Palestinian lands thieves, as have other people on here, l don't see you arguing with them.
Yep, you've said it about all of them, and you've also said that Israel is run by zionists who, according to you, are out to steal the middle east or something, that would make the whole of Israel into thieves, if it was true.
I won't argue with rat', or lynx about it, because they know what TF they are talking about, and they know not to make blanket statements about every single settler.
And furthermore, both of them have already distanced themselves from your argument. lynx even asked you if you were out to hurt palestinian sympathizers.
See above.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I thought I just did, again, by stating that the sites you use to prove the bulk of your posts are, quite obviously, not reliable, also, that last one doesn't really say a thing about what you've claimed about present Israel, or israeli zionists today, which makes it even stranger.
There you go again, generalizing .. you really are a hopeless case, you have absolutely nothing to say, so you carry on with the same old shit. What have l claimed about present Israel? BE SPECIFIC!! l claimed the original concept of Israel as a Jewish state was Zionist, prove me wrong!
Anyhow, the fact that there are no credible sites claiming the same things you've posted about, for example zionism in Israel, is a pretty sure sign it isn't real. If there were, I'm sure you'd have posted that instead.
This really is over the top shit, you're losing it SnnY.
Like lynx said, it's easy to google for the "facts" you want, that doesn't mean a thing if you don't make sure they actually are facts.
Listen to who's talking, you really are a joke!
Quote:
l called the Israelis who occupied Palestinian lands thieves, as have other people on here, l don't see you arguing with them.
Yep, you've said it about all of them, and you've also said that Israel is run by zionists
(Read my answer above.) who, according to you, are out to steal the middle east or something, that would make the whole of Israel into thieves, if it was true.
Now you're making things up, show me where l said that?
I won't argue with rat', or lynx about it, because they know what TF they are talking about, and they know not to make blanket statements about every single settler.
Really? Read Rat's post again.
And furthermore, both of them have already distanced themselves from your argument. lynx even asked you if you were out to hurt palestinian sympathizers.
So what? Are they Gods?
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Wow this thread has flown off topic....
Rio, you stated that I stated lies - that the Syrians do not want the Golan back - well, it's a fact that every 6 months, Israel and Syria re-sign a ceasefire and an agreement that states that the current border with Syria will remain as is.... Crap? I don't think so...
You also said we started the war - please try to think what would have happened if we didn't. Hard to think? Not for me it isn't... It's pretty obviouse what would have happened if we did not defend ourselves from the start.
That killing of the kid - Why is it relevant? I mean, no one has taken into account the many murders taken out by Palestinian terrorists.. Which probably means that most of them - you don't care about, so why should I care so much about a killing that happened BY MISTAKE 5 years ago...!? :blink:
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Is it your reading skills which are fading?
YOU posted a site claiming it was supported by Zionist organisations.
Are you talking about this site >> Homeward Bound? << ??
Let me quote from the site ..
Stephanie Glick
Supervisor of Academic Affairs
Jewish University in CyberspacE
Student and Academic Department
World Zionist Organization
And from the bottom of the page ..
Sponsored by the Joint Program for Jewish Education of the State of Israel,
the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization.
The site itself is a history of Zionism using the resources of the Central Zionist Archives.
YOU claimed I hadn't shecked it out when I called you on it.
Now you claim you've exposed ME?
l exposed you for twisting my words to make it look like l was saying something l didn't.
Do you have a goldfish by any chance, I think you could do with some advice on how to prolong your attention span.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I think you are mean this site as the one sponsored by the people you quote.
http://www.iea.org.il/blueprint/index.htm
But your head is so far up your arse you can't even post a link correctly. The link you posted is a palestinian web page which is stealing content from the above site.
Edit: As for exposing me, I quoted your own words. If you didn't make your meaning clear that's your own fault.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I think you are mean this site as the one sponsored by the people you quote.
http://www.iea.org.il/blueprint/index.htm
But your head is so far up your arse you can't even post a link correctly. The link you posted is a palestinian web page which is stealing content from the above site.
It's you with your head up your arse Lynx, and you're admin. l posted a link to the site as a resource and background to the history of Zionism, not to prove a point. What difference does it make where you read it?
Edit: As for exposing me, I quoted your own words. If you didn't make your meaning clear that's your own fault.
It was quite clear, you deliberately twisted it.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Wow this thread has flown off topic....
Rio, you stated that I stated lies - that the Syrians do not want the Golan back - well, it's a fact that every 6 months, Israel and Syria re-sign a ceasefire and an agreement that states that the current border with Syria will remain as is.... Crap? I don't think so...
Crap! Show me one word from a Syrian source stating their satisfaction with the Israeli occupation?
The only "six months" l can find reference to is the six monthly agreement for UN troops to police the buffer zone.
You also said we started the war - please try to think what would have happened if we didn't. Hard to think? Not for me it isn't... It's pretty obviouse what would have happened if we did not defend ourselves from the start.
l don't give a fuck why Israel did it, l stated that they started it, you said the Arabs did.
That killing of the kid - Why is it relevant? I mean, no one has taken into account the many murders taken out by Palestinian terrorists.. Which probably means that most of them - you don't care about, so why should I care so much about a killing that happened BY MISTAKE 5 years ago...!? :blink:
If it was a mistake, why did the Israeli army apologise and call an enquiry? You also said it was a firefight and the Israeli military said they were responding to stone throwing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights
The Israeli army captured the heights and put it under military administration from 1967 until 1981, when the Knesset passed The Golan Heights Law, similar to its 1967 measures concerning Jerusalem. It permitted the imposition of Israeli identity cards in January 1982 on the mainly Druze Syrians who remained there and allowed them to acquire Israeli citizenship, but most objected strongly to the changes and retained their Syrian citizenship instead. This measure is frequently termed an "annexation" but this is very far from clear - the word or equivalent concepts, like "extending sovereignty" are not used in the law itself.
When Prime Minister Menachem Begin was asked in the Knesset why he was risking international criticism for this annexation, he replied "You use the word annexation, but I am not using it.* The quasigovernmental Jewish Agency for Israel states that "Although reported as a annexation, it is not: the Golan Heights are not declared to be Israeli territory.*- On the other hand, the Netanyahu government's Basic Policy Guidelines stated "The government views the Golan Heights as essential to the security of the state and its water resources. Retaining Israel's sovereignty over the Golan will be the basis for an arrangement with Syria." Neither the UN nor any country has recognised the "annexation" and they officially consider the Heights to be Syrian territory under Israeli military occupation. This view was expressed in the unanimous resolution 497 stating that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect." It, like other relevant UN resolutions takes care to not explicitly call it an "annexation", referring at most to Israel's "annexationist policies."
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I think you are mean this site as the one sponsored by the people you quote.
http://www.iea.org.il/blueprint/index.htm
But your head is so far up your arse you can't even post a link correctly. The link you posted is a palestinian web page which is stealing content from the above site.
It's you with your head up your arse Lynx, and you're admin. l posted a link to the site as a resource and background to the history of Zionism, not to prove a point. What difference does it make where you read it?
No, you tried to claimed the site you had linked to, a palestinian site, was sponsored by those Zionist organisations. You were (again) deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Once again I had to expose your crap.
Edit: As for exposing me, I quoted your own words. If you didn't make your meaning clear that's your own fault.
It was quite clear, you deliberately twisted it.
You intermingled fact and nonsense. I cut out some of the crap and left your "facts", and they were still nonsense. Had I cut out all the crap there would have been nothing left to quote. Maybe that would have been better, since your opinions are so distorted they don't seem to be worth much.
Why do you keep mentioning (incorrectly each time) my position on the board? Do you think I shouldn't have opinions because I'm a moderator? Do you think I shouldn't expose your BS? Or is it perhaps that I'm actually being quite effective at revealing your crap?
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Really, I can't keep pointing out your mistakes for you, try looking at the links you've posted, and the things you've said about the government being controlled by zionists/religious people, and all the bad zionists planning to steal the land, and try, at least try to drag yourself out of that bottomless pit of rampant idiocy you are currently occupying.
I can't do it for you.
And don't even try to compare anything you've said to what rat has, because he really has been backing up his arguments with actual facts.
And he certainly hasn't claimed that all settlers are thieves.
Of course, I know you won't be able to, 'cos you really are nothing but a troll, and I know you get off on any response you get, so no doubt you'll keep doing what you've done.
Also consider this: there is a reason as to why people don't like you, and it isn't that they are all wrong, over and over you keep doing these things, and you really do have issues you need to deal with, so you can get over all this hatred and ignorance.
And, one last thing: no they arent gods, but they do have a point in that your ideas aren't helping this "cause" you claim to support.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
No, you tried to claimed the site you had linked to, a palestinian site, was sponsored by those Zionist organisations. You were (again) deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Once again I had to expose your crap
Bullshit! l said if the person wanted to learn about Zionism he should check the site out, you really are full of it, even when you're caught out lying.
Quote:
You intermingled fact and nonsense. I cut out some of the crap and left your "facts", and they were still nonsense. Had I cut out all the crap there would have been nothing left to quote. Maybe that would have been better, since your opinions are so distorted they don't seem to be worth much.
You did nothing of the sort, you deliberately misrepresented what l had said, which is typical of people like you.
Quote:
Why do you keep mentioning (incorrectly each time) my position on the board? Do you think I shouldn't have opinions because I'm a moderator? Do you think I shouldn't expose your BS? Or is it perhaps that I'm actually being quite effective at revealing your crap?
You take on an air of superiority because you're on the staff, you seem to think your exulted position extends to your opinions, well it doesn't, you talk crap and act crap. l'm surprised you haven't deleted some of my posts that are critical of you, as you have done to others who had the audacity to speak up against your methods.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Really, I can't keep pointing out your mistakes for you, try looking at the links you've posted, and the things you've said about the government being controlled by zionists/religious people, and all the bad zionists planning to steal the land, and try, at least try to drag yourself out of that bottomless pit of rampant idiocy you are currently occupying.
l've really had it with you Snny, you're just a useless troll. Now you expect me to find faults in my posts because you have failed miserably to do so. l've given you every opportunity to be specific, you have looked and looked and can find nothing, so you flame. Well stick it, you're nothing but an immature kid with nothing worthwhile to say.
And he certainly hasn't claimed that all settlers are thieves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
They knew it was not Israeli land, and went in anyway, because they want "Greater Israel".
They wanted to make it impossible to give the land back to the Palestinians.
They knew what they were doing was illegal and immoral and did it anyway.
I have no sympathy for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
The thefts came after the establishment of "International Law", and Israel is a member of the United Nations, therfore recognising this law.
I have no sympathy for any settlers losing their land, as it was never theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
The trouble is some of them returned to find an Israeli squatter living in their home. Other's were forcibly evicted in the manner I indicated. That's not a result of war, it is pure simple theft, there isn't any other way to describe it, and it had the backing of the Israeli courts, army and (possibly by neglect) the Israeli parliament. Theft of a parcel of land is a completely different concept from occupation of a territory.
That's why all the illegal settlements in the occupied zones should be removed.
Sit on it! :shit:
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Why do you keep mentioning (incorrectly each time) my position on the board? Do you think I shouldn't have opinions because I'm a moderator? Do you think I shouldn't expose your BS? Or is it perhaps that I'm actually being quite effective at revealing your crap?
You take on an air of superiority because you're on the staff, you seem to think your exulted position extends to your opinions, well it doesn't, you talk crap and act crap. l'm surprised you haven't deleted some of my posts that are critical of you, as you have done to others who had the audacity to speak up against your methods.
Well lynx never told you to STFU and he leaves you to you opinions, so WTF are you talking about? :blink:
He ain't doin' no more than what SnnY is. :dry:
Persecution complex.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Persecution complex.
STFU!!! and GTFO!!!
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Persecution complex.
STFU!!! and GTFO!!!
Make me Billy, make me.
Damn weren't you banned once? So was I.
Isn't that sumthin?
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Wow this thread has flown off topic....
Rio, you stated that I stated lies - that the Syrians do not want the Golan back - well, it's a fact that every 6 months, Israel and Syria re-sign a ceasefire and an agreement that states that the current border with Syria will remain as is.... Crap? I don't think so...
Actually, Syria do want the Golan Hights back, however Israel illegaly ANNEXED them, which means they are unable to give them back unless they have a majority in your parliament followed by a majority in a referendum.
Syria have also stated that they may be willing to give up claim to them, if Israel goes back to the pre 1967 borders otherwise. The Hights belonged to about 3/4 million Syrians prior to Israel invading them.
You also said we started the war - please try to think what would have happened if we didn't. Hard to think? Not for me it isn't... It's pretty obviouse what would have happened if we did not defend ourselves from the start.
That killing of the kid - Why is it relevant? I mean, no one has taken into account the many murders taken out by Palestinian terrorists.. Which probably means that most of them - you don't care about, so why should I care so much about a killing that happened BY MISTAKE 5 years ago...!? :blink:
Please try to think why Arabs at that time felt so threatened by Israel.
Perhaps this clip from a newspaper interview with King Saud from 1954 will help...
Quote:
Mr. Lilienthal: …Your Majesty a few months ago… said that the Arabs do not care if they sacrifice a few million persons in order to put an end to the Zionists in Palestine.
His Majesty then said: Frankly what I said is what I urge and preach. It is the only answer to what has been published by the responsible persons of Israel about the necessity that Israel should expand to comprise the beds of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Sinai Peninsula and the northern part of Saudi Arabia, including Medina, which is one of the two Holy Towns and the Burial place of the Moslems’ Prophet, and which is after all my own land and the land of every Arab and Moslem. We have learned of this Zionist ambition from the statements of Israeli leaders and its creators who pleaded the course yesterday, and are still pleading it today. They are making no secret of this scheme, and they have made its study part of the school curriculum in Israel, where they cram the students’ heads with these fanciful schemes. There is no answer to what they are after except this antidote, and the preparation of what we can in field of might and force.
The whole interview can be seen here
If Israel was not only stating that it is going to expand, but also teaching it in their schools at that time... what would you expect the surrounding countries to do?
Every Arab country has stated often that they will recognise Israel, if they go back to the pre-1967, mandated borders and stop laying claim to the Greater Israel.
The 2nd part of that caveat is a fact for maybe 90% of the israeli population, however you still include the 2 rivers in your national flag.
Hardly not laying claim in a diplomatic sense though, is it?
The 1st part of the caveat, is what is always being talked about, and which you yourself admit is not going to happen.
I would have thought recognition as a country by your neighbours would have been the biggest step towards security you could make... :unsure:
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
l've really had it with you Snny, you're just a useless troll. Now you expect me to find faults in my posts because you have failed miserably to do so. l've given you every opportunity to be specific, you have looked and looked and can find nothing, so you flame. Well stick it, you're nothing but an immature kid with nothing worthwhile to say.
But I have pointed out faults, over and over, and you still isn't accepting it.
I can't help you if you refuse to look
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
The thefts came after the establishment of "International Law", and Israel is a member of the United Nations, therfore recognising this law.
I have no sympathy for any settlers losing their land, as it was never theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
The trouble is some of them returned to find an Israeli squatter living in their home. Other's were forcibly evicted in the manner I indicated. That's not a result of war, it is pure simple theft, there isn't any other way to describe it, and it had the backing of the Israeli courts, army and (possibly by neglect) the Israeli parliament. Theft of a parcel of land is a completely different concept from occupation of a territory.
That's why all the illegal settlements in the occupied zones should be removed.
He disagrees with me on whether israelis has the rights keep the land. And lynx also said that not all of it was acquired that way. They and I disagree on how many people knew about the thefts, and whether the innocent ones have the rights to keep it.
That doesn't mean they are saying that all settlers are thieves :rolleyes:
Again, I can't help you if you refuse to see it.
Please get help, and stop pestering people on the internet.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
No, you tried to claimed the site you had linked to, a palestinian site, was sponsored by those Zionist organisations. You were (again) deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Once again I had to expose your crap
Bullshit! l said if the person wanted to learn about Zionism he should check the site out, you really are full of it, even when you're caught out lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
@Rio:
Where else a better place to get info about Zionism and the Jews than an Arab website?? :lol: You surprise me time after time, over and over...
The guys are right - your insults and flaming are getting a bit too repetitive, and you post them too often..... Please stop.
:lol:
Sponsored by the Joint Program for Jewish Education of the State of Israel,
the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization.
Direct quotation, still care to insist that you didn't claim that a Palestinian web site was sponsored by Zionist organisations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
You intermingled fact and nonsense. I cut out some of the crap and left your "facts", and they were still nonsense. Had I cut out all the crap there would have been nothing left to quote. Maybe that would have been better, since your opinions are so distorted they don't seem to be worth much.
You did nothing of the sort, you deliberately misrepresented what l had said, which is typical of people like you.
People like me?
:lol: :lol:
You don't even know a thing about me.
I simply keep quoting your exact words back at you, how is that misrepresentation? You are getting boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Why do you keep mentioning (incorrectly each time) my position on the board? Do you think I shouldn't have opinions because I'm a moderator? Do you think I shouldn't expose your BS? Or is it perhaps that I'm actually being quite effective at revealing your crap?
You take on an air of superiority because you're on the staff, you seem to think your exulted position extends to your opinions, well it doesn't, you talk crap and act crap. l'm surprised you haven't deleted some of my posts that are critical of you, as you have done to others who had the audacity to speak up against your methods.
If you think that's an air of superiority, it can only be because you've got an inferiority complex.
As for deleting posts, I have only ever deleted posts which were generally offensive in nature or against the rules. Prove me wrong. I challenge you. Prove me wrong. Or retract the statement and STFU.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
I also pointed out there were Arab settlers of Jewish land, and felt the same thing about them, i believe.
However I stand by my statements that anyone, of whatever faith or nationality, that has "settled" someone elses land.. whether it be Brits in Cyprus, Jews in Palestine/Golan Hights or Syrians taking over abandoned Jewish houses... should not be allowed to stay without "buying" said property from the original owners, if they no longer want it.
If the real owners wish to keep their land, then those that live there now should be removed.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
I also pointed out there were Arab settlers of Jewish land, and felt the same thing about them, i believe.
However I stand by my statements that anyone, of whatever faith or nationality, that has "settled" someone elses land.. whether it be Brits in Cyprus, Jews in Palestine/Golan Hights or Syrians taking over abandoned Jewish houses... should not be allowed to stay without "buying" said property from the original owners, if they no longer want it.
If the real owners wish to keep their land, then those that live there now should be removed.
On the face of the statement I agree, however just out of interest.... Do you have a time scale for this?
Is it 1 generation, 2,3,4 ....100, 200 years?
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Since the foundation of the UN, as this is generally accepted as the start of any relevant "International Law"
EDIT:
This doesnt stop certain Governments compensating certain minorities for things that happened in the past BTW :P
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
@RF: Yes, Israel annexed the GOlan Heights, but the main thing about all this "stealing of land" is that Israel had never annexed the Gaza Strip or the West Bank... Shows you how much we really needed the Golan Heights over Gaza and West Bank doesn't it?
And, after the disengagement, Israel will be going back to the 67 borders excluding minor parts of the West Bank which have been cultivated and now have some thousands of Jews living in one or two places. Israel is more than willing to give land southern to this to the Palestinians. I don't see why this should be a problem.
@Rio: All I can now say to you is FUCK OFF.
Why? Well, I have stated at least 10 times that Israel HAD to start the actual shooting out of no other choice. The Arab countries were the ones getting ready for war first, thus it is pretty obviouse who wanted to start shooting on who, isn't it?
Rat-Faced, as the big mod in this thread, can you please moderate Rios posts? He's getting a little out of hand don't you think?
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
We would have moderated a long time ago, except everyone seemed to be having so much fun... :rolleyes:
Is everyone happy and finished with there pawning now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tralalala
excluding minor parts of the West Bank which have been cultivated and now have some thousands of Jews living in one or two places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Every Arab country has stated often that they will recognise Israel, if they go back to the pre-1967, mandated borders and stop laying claim to the Greater Israel.
The fact that the land was "settled" by Israeli's and cultivated is immaterial.
The land was not theirs to improve or to develope.
No one says you have to leave it Developed when you leave, however the situation of what is required is quite clear... leave it.
Israel's annexation of the Golan Hights has not even been recognised by the USA.. if Syria stops laying claim, then that is up to Syria.
Until this happens, the rest of the world consider it to be Syrian land.
If I buy a car; respray it, put new tyres on and generally fix it up then find out it was stolen.
This means that the owner has had a free spray job... not that the car is now mine.
I may be upset and thump the wall, but that does not alter the fact it was my fault for not being more careful in my purchase.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
That's the biggest problem in this huge conflict.
Israel is refusing to withdraw from those little areas. Israel however does not claim rights on "Greater Israel" (which includes the whole Gaza Strip and the whole West Bank). So, we need to find something in the middle, otherwise this conflict will remain as is for all eternity....
Israel annexed the Golan Heights for one specific reason - safety. Syrians had always shot dead innocent people from the GOlan Heights on the lower areas underneath it. This is why, during the war, Israel decided to annex the area after capturing it, which is what Israel did NOT do with the rest of the land taken over (apart from Sini which was later returned to Egypt as part of a peace treaty).
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If I buy a car; respray it, put new tyres on and generally fix it up then find out it was stolen.
This means that the owner has had a free spray job... not that the car is now mine.
I may be upset and thump the wall, but that does not alter the fact it was my fault for not being more careful in my purchase.
If that's how your laws work, it may be that we are products of our respective systems, and that this is why we disagree on this issue.
Until fairly recently we had a law here that said that if you'd bought property in good faith, you got to keep it, even if it later turned out to be stolen property. (I think it may have been discarded in compliance with EU law, or somesuch.)
I quite thought this law made sense, as this meant that the current owner wouldn't be punished for someone else's actions.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
@Rio: All I can now say to you is FUCK OFF.
Why? Well, I have stated at least 10 times that Israel HAD to start the actual shooting out of no other choice. The Arab countries were the ones getting ready for war first, thus it is pretty obviouse who wanted to start shooting on who, isn't it?
Rat-Faced, as the big mod in this thread, can you please moderate Rios posts? He's getting a little out of hand don't you think?
Not cool at all!!! :angry: don't start that snitching shit. Rat and lynx are IN this thread. I'm sure they see the friggin' posts. :ermm:
Leave it alone.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Sorry Busyman, but Rio was going over the top, too far over the top.
Now I know he actually looked at it in "that way" (RF), I'll leave it for now.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If I buy a car; respray it, put new tyres on and generally fix it up then find out it was stolen.
This means that the owner has had a free spray job... not that the car is now mine.
I may be upset and thump the wall, but that does not alter the fact it was my fault for not being more careful in my purchase.
If that's how your laws work, it may be that we are products of our respective systems, and that this is why we disagree on this issue.
Until fairly recently we had a law here that said that if you'd bought property in good faith, you got to keep it, even if it later turned out to be stolen property. (I think it may have been discarded in compliance with EU law, or somesuch.)
I quite thought this law made sense, as this meant that the current owner wouldn't be punished for someone else's actions.
I thought that was the situation here too, if you bought something in good faith it was yours. The original owner took the matter up with the thief.
Or more likely claimed their insurance. Which they would have done with the car thing. Think it thro' RF, your analogy is v poor.
That's just what I thought tho', I can't support it.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Another way to look at it...
Settlers didn't take the land. The government did.
The land should be returned to the rightful owners and the settlers should take the matter up with the government.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I thought that was the situation here too, if you bought something in good faith it was yours. The original owner took the matter up with the thief.
Or more likely claimed their insurance. Which they would have done with the car thing. Think it thro' RF, your analogy is v poor.
That's just what I thought tho', I can't support it.
In England; it will usually belong to the Insurance Company, on the basis that they will have "bought" the vehicle by paying out the insurance.
If they haven't paid out, then it belongs to the Registered Keeper whether you have bought in good faith or not.
Either way the car will, in all probability, be removed by the police until the matter is sorted.
This is why there are a lot of companies that will make sure a car is not stolen and/or subject to HP etc prior to purchase.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Another way to look at it...
Settlers didn't take the land. The government did.
The land should be returned to the rightful owners and the settlers should take the matter up with the government.
Good point, compensation from the Government.
