independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Gaza vs Israel continues.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 8 of 9 <123456789>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #210 posted 06/09/21 3:10pm

RichardS

Ace said:

RichardS said:

Let's say the Israeli government, courts, etc had said - you know what, those 300 Palestinians have been living there for ages, it's their home, we shouldn't even think about evicting them, we should leave them be.

What harm would that have caused to Israel? What damage would that decision have caused?

Serious question.

[Edited 6/9/21 14:27pm]


Ask the owners of the property. Then show me a court in another country that would've decided differently.

I'm asking you for your opinion.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #211 posted 06/09/21 3:15pm

RichardS

Ace said:

IanRG said:

.

There were no rockets in the Al Jazeera building that was destroyed. The MSF hospital was not a Hamas weaponry site. The "area" to which you refer was an area that had between 66,000 and 76,000 people in it - this is the number of people displaced by airstrikes. This gives you idea of the size of the area and that shows that most people did seek shelter elsewhere. The Israelis were targeting people and their homes, offices and workplaces as much as they were targeting weoponry - most of which probably moved at the same time as the 70,000. It is a lie that around a 1000 airstrikes were all the other side's fault. It is this thinking that perpetuates the evil.

.

The launching of rockets was in response to more land grabs and more violence against protesters including people in a Mosque - It was a terror attack. The airstrikes were the same - It was a terror attack against resistance to the Israeli escalations.

.

Your desperation in your attempts to justify the aggression of Israel whilst making everything the fault of everyone else makes you think you are not being answered. You are liar and a fabricator of deliberately repulsive false accusations for your propaganda and have no right to demand people answer you in the way you want to be answered.

.

My answer is already given and it is all you are getting. Continuing to answer you only results in escalation in your repulsive fabrications to protect Israel from any criticism.


The building you're referring to was being used by Hamas to develop capabilities that would fuck with Iron-Dome. And there's no doubt that the Palestinians have continually fired rockets indsicriminately at Israeli civilian areas. Again: double-standards. Also: There were no casualties as a result of the strike on that building (due to Israel giving advance warning - something the Palestinians have never done).

Re: the MSF hospital, that airstrike was to destroy underground Hamas military infrastructure. If you're going to put military shit earmarked to kill Jews under a hospital, and you don't vacate when warned, that (while incredibly, incredibly tragic), is on you, Hoss.

If Hamas doesn't want its civilian areas targeted, then it'd be best not to fire rockets at Israel and keep said rockets in civilian areas.


"Land grabs"... Please. They continually provoke Israel, then cry "Victim!" when Israel fights back. Yeah, sometimes in a war you lose land. And you know what's a good way to not get it back? Continue to threaten the people you lost it to.


"My answer is already given..."

To quote you - the holy, Christian man: "Bullshit."

You continue to evade the question because you know you have no reasonable answer.

Go peddle that excuse to a fool who'll buy it. falloff



“The horrendous attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure that we are witnessing in Gaza are inexcusable and intolerable,” says Ely Sok, Head of MSF in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

But according to you he's...what...just plain wrong? Anti-Semitic? A dupe, a stooge? Knows less about the situation than you?

Edit - can you provide a link to proof that particular MSF building had Hamas military infrastructure underground?

2nd edit - how the f*ck do you get blank lines into a reply?!

[Edited 6/9/21 15:17pm]

[Edited 6/9/21 15:18pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #212 posted 06/09/21 4:29pm

IanRG

Ace said:

IanRG said:

.

There were no rockets in the Al Jazeera building that was destroyed. The MSF hospital was not a Hamas weaponry site. The "area" to which you refer was an area that had between 66,000 and 76,000 people in it - this is the number of people displaced by airstrikes. This gives you idea of the size of the area and that shows that most people did seek shelter elsewhere. The Israelis were targeting people and their homes, offices and workplaces as much as they were targeting weoponry - most of which probably moved at the same time as the 70,000. It is a lie that around a 1000 airstrikes were all the other side's fault. It is this thinking that perpetuates the evil.

.

The launching of rockets was in response to more land grabs and more violence against protesters including people in a Mosque - It was a terror attack. The airstrikes were the same - It was a terror attack against resistance to the Israeli escalations.

.

Your desperation in your attempts to justify the aggression of Israel whilst making everything the fault of everyone else makes you think you are not being answered. You are liar and a fabricator of deliberately repulsive false accusations for your propaganda and have no right to demand people answer you in the way you want to be answered.

.

My answer is already given and it is all you are getting. Continuing to answer you only results in escalation in your repulsive fabrications to protect Israel from any criticism.


The building you're referring to was being used by Hamas to develop capabilities that would fuck with Iron-Dome. And there's no doubt that the Palestinians have continually fired rockets indsicriminately at Israeli civilian areas. Again: double-standards. Also: There were no casualties as a result of the strike on that building (due to Israel giving advance warning - something the Palestinians have never done).

Re: the MSF hospital, that airstrike was to destroy underground Hamas military infrastructure. If you're going to put military shit earmarked to kill Jews under a hospital, and you don't vacate when warned, that (while incredibly, incredibly tragic), is on you, Hoss.

If Hamas doesn't want its civilian areas targeted, then it'd be best not to fire rockets at Israel and keep said rockets in civilian areas.


"Land grabs"... Please. They continually provoke Israel, then cry "Victim!" when Israel fights back. Yeah, sometimes in a war you lose land. And you know what's a good way to not get it back? Continue to threaten the people you lost it to.


"My answer is already given..."

To quote you - the holy, Christian man: "Bullshit."

You continue to evade the question because you know you have no reasonable answer.

Go peddle that excuse to a fool who'll buy it. falloff



.

I have answered the question many times - Youy just don't like the answer.

.

In not liking the answer you will justify perhaps the building was used by people to develop counter weapons against the Israeli weapons - Would you think it is OK to destroy any building in Israel that has an office for a defence industry developer? Or would you agree with me that alternate means of de-escalation are much more likely to succeed? (This is a question unlike the lie that you said when you said I asked you about suicided bombers when it was you raised them unasked).

.

You justify blowing up a hospital funded and staffed by MSF because perhaps the tunnels may have gone under the hospital - Would you think it is OK for Hamas to bomb hospitals and schools because they are near military infrastructures?

.

You have accused me of double standards for recognsing that the rockets and the airstrikes were terror attacks. I have always held them both responsible and I have constantly resisted your call for relativism to dismiss evil by your side and condemn evil by the other side.

.

The reasonable answer is given, You just cannot see past your angry red fog.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #213 posted 06/09/21 4:43pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

IanRG said:

fortuneandserendipity said:


Is it just me or is there a disservice to the facts
by omitting nuance out of the picture, specifically relating to the background of point 1 ^ (that is to say, what came before).

by A) neglecting to mention that these properties have long had their ownership claims contested over since the says of the Ottoman Empire over a hundred years ago. There has been claim and counter claim as to who owned the land concerning these houses, and who legally could only rent, as well as additional claims regarding forgery of documents. But in conclusion, there's no way of knowing the veracity of documents dating back that far. There's also the possibility the Jews had their law documents pertaining to that land, and the Arabs had theirs, and they just happened to contradict.

and B) not including the recent development in 2008, when a Jewish court ruled that any Arab families in the Sheikh Jarrah district (that is the source of the recent escalations) would have protected tenant status if they continued to pay their rent. And of course this declaration, in a wider democratic context, makes sense under any domestic body of law, whereupon both owner and tenant status are fully recognised with their own respective rights. So it could be argued that by failing to pay rents, instead protesting over their purportedly genuine (or maybe not) property rights, those Palestinian families were inciting conflict.

.

Yes, it is just you.

.

You are omitting the nuances that what you arguing is these houses bought and paid for are now subject to a rent payable to Israeli claimants if you are Arab. The courts and laws have a bias that means that places occupied by Israelis under titles held by Israelis have a history of having the Israeli respective rights more fully recognised than the Arab. I did not miss your nuance that in your eyes it once again a process of finding the Palestinian is the inciter.


Really, did you ask everyone?

Are you sure I didn't mention the 'rent' in my previous reply... I think you'll find I did. Strawmanning perhaps?

And if you read a bit more carefully you'll see I'm not judging either side or claiming to know the veracity of relevant documents. Therefore, where I'm concerned or really anyone else for that matter, there is no sure way without having inside knowledge to know exactly how these legal jurisdictions came about and the exact circumstances preceding them. Now you say "the courts and laws have a bias". But again, to reiterate, noone really knows who had legal ownership of this area during the Ottoman period, or whether subsequently they legitimately crossed into Arab hands.

Anyway you chose not to include this in your 12 bullet points for whatever reason. You also chose not to mention the refusal of the Palestinians to pay the rent, while giving the impression the Israelis were unfair by decreeing more Palestinians should be "forced out of their homes". Again, we don't know the background, all the whys and wherefores. Further afield, in general, not paying rent typically leads to evictions. Which usually conform to the law. But here we don't know all the whys and wherefores, so I'm not judging, because it could be that the judiciary are assuming certain documents valid that aren't or interpreting them too loosely. There's no way of knowing, because the legal situation is more complex than normal.

Maybe you should check with yourself about grammar. 'So it could be argued' isn't the same as saying 'I definitely believe'. It's quite a neutral term actually. But yes, it's easy to surmise that not paying rent was one of the steps along the "path to Israeli airstrikes", as you put it. Doesn't take any bias to say that.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #214 posted 06/09/21 5:42pm

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

IanRG said:

.

Yes, it is just you.

.

You are omitting the nuances that what you arguing is these houses bought and paid for are now subject to a rent payable to Israeli claimants if you are Arab. The courts and laws have a bias that means that places occupied by Israelis under titles held by Israelis have a history of having the Israeli respective rights more fully recognised than the Arab. I did not miss your nuance that in your eyes it once again a process of finding the Palestinian is the inciter.


Really, did you ask everyone?

Are you sure I didn't mention the 'rent' in my previous reply... I think you'll find I did. Strawmanning perhaps?

And if you read a bit more carefully you'll see I'm not judging either side or claiming to know the veracity of relevant documents. Therefore, where I'm concerned or really anyone else for that matter, there is no sure way without having inside knowledge to know exactly how these legal jurisdictions came about and the exact circumstances preceding them. Now you say "the courts and laws have a bias". But again, to reiterate, noone really knows who had legal ownership of this area during the Ottoman period, or whether subsequently they legitimately crossed into Arab hands.

Anyway you chose not to include this in your 12 bullet points for whatever reason. You also chose not to mention the refusal of the Palestinians to pay the rent, while giving the impression the Israelis were unfair by decreeing more Palestinians should be "forced out of their homes". Again, we don't know the background, all the whys and wherefores. Further afield, in general, not paying rent typically leads to evictions. Which usually conform to the law. But here we don't know all the whys and wherefores, so I'm not judging, because it could be that the judiciary are assuming certain documents valid that aren't or interpreting them too loosely. There's no way of knowing, because the legal situation is more complex than normal.

Maybe you should check with yourself about grammar. 'So it could be argued' isn't the same as saying 'I definitely believe'. It's quite a neutral term actually. But yes, it's easy to surmise that not paying rent was one of the steps along the "path to Israeli airstrikes", as you put it. Doesn't take any bias to say that.

.

You asked, I answered. So it was it just meant to be a stupid question because you knew you never accept any answer and you only asked it as a method of seeking to discredit me.

.

When I discredit you I use facts not trick questions - Such as I NEVER said you did not mention rent, I discussed that your missed that only Arabs are subject to this law that requires people who bought and paid for their home to now pay rent to Israelis who say they have a claim on the house. Funny how the court decisions favour Israelis getting rent and not Arabs.

.

I chose to not include many prior things because the trigger for the violence was in the protests leading up to expected decision.

.

How many places in the rest of world require people mostly from other ethnic and religious groups to pay rent to people of the governing ethnic and religious group for land that the families of the other ethnic nad religious group bought and paid for as owners?

.

Hiding behind "so it could be argued" but then asserting this as strongly as you have means you are not merely coming with a possible argument but it is something you believe. By all means, tell me if you don't believe it with an explanation of why you think your statement is (or could be) wrong.

[Edited 6/10/21 16:05pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #215 posted 06/09/21 6:44pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

What part of the rockets can be legally fired by Hamas doesn't Ace get? Hamas can legally respond to occupation with force.

Israeli troops are all over civilian towns. There is the human shields.

Good Noam Chomsky interview by Peter Beinart.

Ace is a Trumper, no getting into that head of his.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #216 posted 06/09/21 6:50pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Here's one of the lovely checkpoints:

Image

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #217 posted 06/09/21 9:06pm

Ace

2freaky4church1 said:

Ace is a Trumper


spit

falloff

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #218 posted 06/10/21 6:39pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

One question for Ace:

Can Palestinians defend themselves?

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #219 posted 06/11/21 11:50am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

Ace said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Ace is a Trumper


spit

falloff


It's typical of the hard left to make out anyone not agreeing with them must be a neoliberal Trump sympathizer.

<

[Edited 6/11/21 11:52am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #220 posted 06/12/21 9:04am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

His talking points are similar.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #221 posted 06/12/21 7:52pm

Ace

2freaky4church1 said:

His talking points are similar.


rolleyes You debate with the sophistication of a teenager. You're all strawmanning and name-calling.

But - on the positive side - you're pretty emblematic of the present-day "progressive" ideology (with its sanctimonious, hypocritical denial of the Jungian shadow). You're so far outside the Overton window, you might as well jump.

So that bodes well for the rapid extinction of Wokeism and all its attendant bullshit.

If you're lucky, one day you'll have an epiphany, and you'll embrace a more authentic life (and be a much, much happier person for it). But I have a feeling you're not gonna be that lucky.

But I'm hoping - for your sake - you are. heart

[Edited 6/12/21 19:52pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #222 posted 06/13/21 11:06am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I'm not debating, because you are an idealogue. You are a kool aid drinker. You side with Israel no matter what I say. You say crazy stuff and never back it up, like our racial friends. Ace is the nut who said most blacks hate Jews. I wish Israelis would stop hating Arab children. That can't be hard. Look into their beautiful faces.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #223 posted 06/13/21 11:36am

Ace

2freaky4church1 said:

I'm not debating, because you are an idealogue. You are a kool aid drinker. You side with Israel no matter what I say. You say crazy stuff and never back it up, like our racial friends. Ace is the nut who said most blacks hate Jews. I wish Israelis would stop hating Arab children. That can't be hard. Look into their beautiful faces.


I'm an ideologue and a "kool aid drinker [sic]"?

spit

falloff

Project much?

And (yet again rolleyes) you're strawmanning:

Ace is the nut who said most blacks hate Jews.


Do you really think people can't read? I said:

As for Blacks... I read that there's an even greater prejudice against Jews amongst the community than amongst the general populace.


With friends like you, the radical-left needs no enemies.

Now go piss off and peddle your "progressive" support of women-subjugating, gay-hating Palestine (along with its attendant terrorism) to your fellow in-denial, overgrown children with their thinly-veiled anti-Semitism.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #224 posted 06/13/21 11:45am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Ace just advocated bombing the red states.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #225 posted 06/13/21 11:56am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Ace baby:

https://www.haaretz.com/i...-1.9313545

https://www.astraeafounda...gay-women/

https://uscpr.org/queerstruggle

"

As Israel tarnishes its international image with continued and systematic violence against the Palestinian people, Israel is working hard to do PR damage control. Brand Israel, a campaign by the Israeli foreign ministry, prime minister, and finance ministry—in consultation with U.S. marketing experts—aims to re-brand Israel as progressive and modern instead of militaristic and based on a system of ethno-religious supremacy.

Pinkwashing is a component of Brand Israel. Pinkwashing refers to Israel’s campaign to distract from its egregious violations of international law and the human, civil, and political rights of Palestinians by shining a bright light on its supposed cultural liberalism and its supposed fun, fabulous, and gay-friendly culture.

Pinkwashing juxtaposes a falsely progressive image of Israel with a racist portrayal of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim societies as backwards, repressive, and intolerant. This is part of a long-standing colonial logic that uses racist, orientalist portrayals to justify Western colonization as a way of “saving” and “freeing” the colonized, who are too “uncivilized” to rule themselves.

Examples of pinkwashing include Israel’s promotion of its capital, Tel Aviv, as a welcoming gay tourist destination, without mentioning that Tel Aviv is built on top of several Palestinian villages and is off-limits to most Palestinians who carry West Bank or Gaza Strip IDs (unless they are lucky enough to get a permit from Israel), and in exile, even if they are queer."

Ace the pink washer.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #226 posted 06/13/21 11:57am

Ace

2freaky4church1 said:

Ace just advocated bombing the red states.


I'm assuming you're implying that I think any place that subjugates women and oppresses gays should be bombed? rolleyes

First of all, when it comes to women-subjugating and oppressing gays, the "red states" look like a progressive paradise compared to the Palestinian territories.


Secondly, my point (of course) is that your stumping for Palestine sits in highly ironic opposition to your claim to be all about progressive values. Your ideological, anti-Semtic overlords tell you to hate Israel and you do so with absolutely zero critical thought.

How old are you?

That's not a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely curious.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #227 posted 06/13/21 12:08pm

Ace

2freaky4church1 said:

As Israel tarnishes its international image with continued and systematic violence against the Palestinian people


"Continued and systematic violence against the Palestinian people"? Good Christ. As our resident holy man, Ian, might say: Bullshit.

You know who does commit continued and systematic violence against people? Hamas. And you know who endorses it? The P.A.


Brand Israel, a campaign by the Israeli foreign ministry, prime minister, and finance ministry—in consultation with U.S. marketing experts—aims to re-brand Israel as progressive and modern


Israel is (especially among its neighbors) progressive and modern. You know who's not? Palestine, Lebanon, etc., etc.


Pinkwashing is a component of Brand Israel. Pinkwashing refers to Israel’s campaign to distract from its egregious violations of international law and the human, civil, and political rights of Palestinians by shining a bright light on its supposed cultural liberalism and its supposed fun, fabulous, and gay-friendly culture.


I do have to hand it to the anti-Semite who came up with the term "pinkwashing". I mean, it was a brilliant stroke in getting the stupid among the LGBTQIA+ to campaign against their own interests. "Pinkwashing". spit Please. rolleyes

Pinkwashing juxtaposes a falsely progressive image of Israel with a racist portrayal of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim societies as backwards, repressive, and intolerant.


Oh, now it's "racist" to point out that these societies are among the most backward, repressive and intolerant when it comes to gay and women's rights?

Please, go peddle that nonsense to your fellow useful idiots for radical Islam.

Some "progressive" you are. rolleyes How did Bill Maher put it? "Tolerance of intolerance"? :shakingmyfuckinghead:

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #228 posted 06/13/21 12:21pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I will help you out Ace. From Frommers tour guide:

"Note that in the Palestinian/Arabic communities throughout Israel, and in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Jordan, and Egypt, any kind of openly gay or lesbian behavior is completely forbidden both by custom and by law. Extreme caution and the lowest possible profile are advised. Similar discretion must be observed in the Jewish ultrareligious and Hassidic neighborhoods of Jerusalem north of Jaffa Road (such as Mea Shearim); in the Old City of Jerusalem; in Safed, which has a largely religious population; and in small, less-touristed Israeli towns where the character of the population may not be clear."

Try being gay in orthodox Jewish quarter. I never said Palestinians were angels. I support human rights, no matter what. They rightly compare the west to oppression, so they think gayness is a form of moral oppression. That is wrong but they believe it. I'd guess most mainstream Arabs have no problem with gays.

-------

Muslims in America tend to favor even gay marriage. Actually, Acey, more than our Evangelical Christians, according to polls.

In Afghanistan the Taliban dress boys up as women and sex them. How sick is that.

-------------

This is Abby Martin interviewing Miko Peled, son of former Mossad chief. He sides with Palestine:

https://www.youtube.com/w...aLv1LD9MCw

He's Jewish.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #229 posted 06/13/21 12:33pm

Ace

2freaky4church1 said:

I will help you out Ace. From Frommers tour guide:

"Note that in the Palestinian/Arabic communities throughout Israel, and in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Jordan, and Egypt, any kind of openly gay or lesbian behavior is completely forbidden both by custom and by law. Extreme caution and the lowest possible profile are advised. Similar discretion must be observed in the Jewish ultrareligious and Hassidic neighborhoods of Jerusalem north of Jaffa Road (such as Mea Shearim); in the Old City of Jerusalem; in Safed, which has a largely religious population; and in small, less-touristed Israeli towns where the character of the population may not be clear."

Try being gay in orthodox Jewish quarter. I never said Palestinians were angels. I support human rights, no matter what. They rightly compare the west to oppression, so they think gayness is a form of moral oppression. That is wrong but they believe it. I'd guess most mainstream Arabs have no problem with gays.

-------

Muslims in America tend to favor even gay marriage. Actually, Acey, more than our Evangelical Christians, according to polls.

In Afghanistan the Taliban dress boys up as women and sex them. How sick is that.

-------------

This is Abby Martin interviewing Miko Peled, son of former Mossad chief. He sides with Palestine:

https://www.youtube.com/w...aLv1LD9MCw

He's Jewish.


You're like shooting fish in a fucking barrel, man.


The difference is that in Israel it's religious sects. It's not the fucking culture as whole, the law and the "government". rolleyes

I support human rights


Then put pay to that and stop supporting places where there's zero legal protection for gays and where women are firmly second-class citizens.

I'd guess most mainstream Arabs have no problem with gays.


If you're talking about Arabic countries, then you're, like, way wrong, dude.

Muslims in America tend to favor even gay marriage.


Assuming this is accurate, that's in America, dude. Big difference. Huge.

I have to go shopping now... whistle

This is Abby Martin

spit Abby Martin's the biggest anti-Semite going, dude. She lies about Israel constantly and hasn't had the courage to debate a single person on the subject ('cause she knows she'd be made a fool of).

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #230 posted 06/13/21 1:26pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I'd avoid saying Miko Peled too. Former Mossad chief's son. Abby Martin is a great freedom fighter.

-----

Ace will not tell you this but Hamas changed their charter. Lookie at this:

" Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity."

Yep.

" Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine."

Amen Hamas. hehe.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #231 posted 06/13/21 2:02pm

Ace

2freaky4church1 said:

Abby Martin is a great freedom fighter.


spit falloff

Amen Hamas. hehe.


Yep, that pretty much says it all about you: tittering over your support of a terrorist group.


Ace will not tell you this but Hamas changed their charter.


False.

Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage.


Oh, thank you, Hamas, for letting is us know that "the Jewish problem" barf, anti-Semitism and the persecution of Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history..."

I love how these clowns think they can split hairs and pull the wool over anyone's eyes. rolleyes

and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage.


"Antisemitism in Islam refers to the Islamic scriptural and theological teachings against Jews and Judaism, and the treatment and persecution of Jews in the Muslim world."

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #232 posted 06/13/21 4:57pm

IanRG

Ace said:

As our resident holy man, Ian, might say: Bullshit

.

Leave me out of this - If you have not noticed, I have been calling out Freaky's bullshit more than your bullshit. There is nothing in religious beliefs that says religious people must never criticise those who justify wrongs.

.

Anyway, at least today we can say "Yahu", some progress has been made. I pray that it holds together and similar corrections for evils done occurs on all the other sides (within Israel, within Palestine and between the two) for the benefit of all people in Israel and Palestine.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #233 posted 06/13/21 5:14pm

Ace

IanRG said:



Ace said:


As our resident holy man, Ian, might say: Bullshit




.


Leave me out of this - If you have not noticed, I have been calling out Freaky's bullshit more than your bullshit. There is nothing in religious beliefs that says religious people must never criticise those who justify wrongs.


.


Anyway, at least today we can say "Yahu", some progress has been made. I pray that it holds together and similar corrections for evils done occurs on all the other sides (within Israel, within Palestine and between the two) for the benefit of all people in Israel and Palestine.



My bad, Ian! I hadn’t noticed that you’d taken on Freaky.

Anyhoo…

Netanyahu’s not the hawk he’s been made out to be. I do *not* like him playing nice with the right-wing factions in the country, but their system of legislature seems to have made these strange-bedfellows coalitions necessary to form a government. They really should do something about that.

Lastly, we agree that what we want is PEACE. So, c’mon, Palestine: Kick Hamas and Abbas to the curb so that both sides can ensure a brighter future for their children.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #234 posted 06/13/21 6:06pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

Speaking of holy men...innocent that have no problem criticising those who justify wrongs, check out John the Baptist here. What a speech this is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0IRLjIomYI



Maybe he was the original Christian apologist. Or maybe the State of Israel is the new Roman Empire after all? You decide.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #235 posted 06/13/21 7:32pm

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

Speaking of holy men...innocent that have no problem criticising those who justify wrongs, check out John the Baptist here. What a speech this is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0IRLjIomYI



Maybe he was the original Christian apologist. Or maybe the State of Israel is the new Roman Empire after all? You decide.

.

You really struggle with facts. John The Baptist was a Jew who was killed by the Israelis before Christianity started.

.

I am pretty sure you don't know what apologist means. Perhaps you could look up wikipedia instead of getting your information from social media.

.

Someone recently said "because you get your facts from social media it's blinding you to the reality of events" and then they post a link from social media!!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #236 posted 06/14/21 1:13am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

IanRG said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Speaking of holy men...innocent that have no problem criticising those who justify wrongs, check out John the Baptist here. What a speech this is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0IRLjIomYI



Maybe he was the original Christian apologist. Or maybe the State of Israel is the new Roman Empire after all? You decide.

.

You really struggle with facts. John The Baptist was a Jew who was killed by the Israelis before Christianity started.

.

I am pretty sure you don't know what apologist means. Perhaps you could look up wikipedia instead of getting your information from social media.

.

Someone recently said "because you get your facts from social media it's blinding you to the reality of events" and then they post a link from social media!!


Wow, you struggle not to make churlish assumptions. It was meant as a joke but maybe the scene is too close to the bone for you. Further, I know a lot about John the Baptist from studying Christianity so you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

And I'm also sure what apologist means, having read years ago Michael Stipe being corrected in interview, because he had assumed the word to be quite literal as indicated by its spelling. He was as surprised by that as he was to be sat next to a gardener being interviewed on The One Show.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #237 posted 06/14/21 2:33am

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

IanRG said:

.

You really struggle with facts. John The Baptist was a Jew who was killed by the Israelis before Christianity started.

.

I am pretty sure you don't know what apologist means. Perhaps you could look up wikipedia instead of getting your information from social media.

.

Someone recently said "because you get your facts from social media it's blinding you to the reality of events" and then they post a link from social media!!


Wow, you struggle not to make churlish assumptions. It was meant as a joke but maybe the scene is too close to the bone for you. Further, I know a lot about John the Baptist from studying Christianity so you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

And I'm also sure what apologist means, having read years ago Michael Stipe being corrected in interview, because he had assumed the word to be quite literal as indicated by its spelling. He was as surprised by that as he was to be sat next to a gardener being interviewed on The One Show.

.

Yeah - that does not work.

.

You are using the weakest defence so often made here - When a poor attempt at making a point against the group you are opposed to falls flat and, instead, shows up your own lack of knowledge, fallling back to it was only meant as a joke is fooling no one. Then you cannot help yourself and follow this up with an accusation that is in line with your original actual intent in your failed attempt to make a point.

.

Why do you feel the need to lie? You said John The Baptist was (maybe) the original Christian apologist based on a movie. This demonstrates that your studies have failed you and your boast of knowing anything is as silly as your claim that you know what apologist means from the One Show. If you knew what it meant, you would know that you comment made no sense.

[Edited 6/14/21 3:41am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #238 posted 06/14/21 8:01am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

IanRG said:

fortuneandserendipity said:


Wow, you struggle not to make churlish assumptions. It was meant as a joke but maybe the scene is too close to the bone for you. Further, I know a lot about John the Baptist from studying Christianity so you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

And I'm also sure what apologist means, having read years ago Michael Stipe being corrected in interview, because he had assumed the word to be quite literal as indicated by its spelling. He was as surprised by that as he was to be sat next to a gardener being interviewed on The One Show.

.

Yeah - that does not work.

.

You are using the weakest defence so often made here - When a poor attempt at making a point against the group you are opposed to falls flat and, instead, shows up your own lack of knowledge, fallling back to it was only meant as a joke is fooling no one. Then you cannot help yourself and follow this up with an accusation that is in line with your original actual intent in your failed attempt to make a point.

.

Why do you feel the need to lie? You said John The Baptist was (maybe) the original Christian apologist based on a movie. This demonstrates that your studies have failed you and your boast of knowing anything is as silly as your claim that you know what apologist means from the One Show. If you knew what it meant, you would know that you comment made no sense.

[Edited 6/14/21 3:41am]


It so happens it's one of my favourite scenes in all film. There's a bit in the scene where John the Baptist looks all around him, after Jesus asks him if he's the messiah. It's a great scene but I find that part unintentionally hilarious as well. So I'm allowed to be flippant momentarily - at least in the context of this thread. Instead, you wrongly assume I don't know anything of what I'm talking about. I was taught religious studies many years at school and attended church, though arguably not by choice.

I'm also well aware apologists only came after Jesus. So color me biased, even facetious, but I see a lot of zealous attitude in that part of the world today. At least within a certain, albeit minority element in the Palestinian community. And I view the reason for this as religion. You, on the other hand Ian, appear to have spent a good proportion of the thread trying to discount any argument religion has anything to do with the current troubles, nevermind the past. Are you going to skate around that proposition, or outright deny it? Or is there a modicum of truth to it?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #239 posted 06/14/21 1:55pm

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

IanRG said:

.

Yeah - that does not work.

.

You are using the weakest defence so often made here - When a poor attempt at making a point against the group you are opposed to falls flat and, instead, shows up your own lack of knowledge, fallling back to it was only meant as a joke is fooling no one. Then you cannot help yourself and follow this up with an accusation that is in line with your original actual intent in your failed attempt to make a point.

.

Why do you feel the need to lie? You said John The Baptist was (maybe) the original Christian apologist based on a movie. This demonstrates that your studies have failed you and your boast of knowing anything is as silly as your claim that you know what apologist means from the One Show. If you knew what it meant, you would know that you comment made no sense.

[Edited 6/14/21 3:41am]


It so happens it's one of my favourite scenes in all film. There's a bit in the scene where John the Baptist looks all around him, after Jesus asks him if he's the messiah. It's a great scene but I find that part unintentionally hilarious as well. So I'm allowed to be flippant momentarily - at least in the context of this thread. Instead, you wrongly assume I don't know anything of what I'm talking about. I was taught religious studies many years at school and attended church, though arguably not by choice.

I'm also well aware apologists only came after Jesus. So color me biased, even facetious, but I see a lot of zealous attitude in that part of the world today. At least within a certain, albeit minority element in the Palestinian community. And I view the reason for this as religion. You, on the other hand Ian, appear to have spent a good proportion of the thread trying to discount any argument religion has anything to do with the current troubles, nevermind the past. Are you going to skate around that proposition, or outright deny it? Or is there a modicum of truth to it?

.

You don't know what you are talking about and you have repeatedly demonstrated this. But worse than that, you are fooling no one: you did not include this scene because it is one of your favourite scenes in all film, you included it to seek to poke fun at "holy people".

.

If you knew anything about the scene and John the Baptist, you would know that did not fit your explanation, that person did not fit John the Baptist and it does not correspond with time, place and circumstances of the Baptism of Christ - John is described differently and would have been only months older than Jesus. Even Scorsese knew this movie and scene was made up and put a disclaimer in the film to this effect. It is not at all in the context of this thread except Ace called me a holy man and you wanted to mock me.

.

You still do not know what apologist means. Timing is not your only beginner's error in this understanding. It does not mean having a zealous attitude - there is already a word for that - zealot.

.

I have not skated around your proposition and will continue to not do so. To that end: You are a liar and have been making up false accusations to suit your myths and cover your ass throughout this thread. I have never once argued that religion plays no part in the aggression of Israel and Palestine in the 21st century and have already told you this a number of times. You never had the courage or integrity to answer my last post to you before you just retreated to mocking. Your sources are the One Show, youtubes, movies and Wikipedia and you still have to fall back to trick questions, mockery and making things up.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 8 of 9 <123456789>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Gaza vs Israel continues.