Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

West Bank/East Jerusalem Settlement Plans

slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 9:48:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
*Everyone knew that this was happening and will continue to happen.

*Everyone knows that Israel will not seriously discuss peace until they have settled all the lands they want (much easier to negotiate people staying when they are living there than when they are not living there)

* Everyone knows that Palestinian Authority will not give up claim on East Jerusalem (maybe bits of west bank but never EJ)

* Everyone knows that a very large chunk of Palestinians support warfare against Israel. (I just read an opinion piece in Bloomberg that stated 29% Palestinians support Hamas who has a warfare agenda versus a two state solution. Not certain if accurate, but we can all agree there is a rather large %)

* Everyone knows that this is more about religion than any side will admit. Netenyahu just requested that Palestinian Authority agree to recognize that Israel is a Jewish state.
http://www.nytimes.com...

A very odd request especially when the PA has already recognized the right of Israel to exist. Makes one wonder what Israel would do should the Jewish majority be threatened to become a minority in Israel?

* Everyone knows that the main argument that gets one to support a side over the other is very arbitrary and really has not bearing on the end solution.

* Until both sides get to a point they can give up previously stated "ungive-up-able" requirements, we are in a quasi state of war.

What does all that mean?

What this means is that this is war. Anyone who picks a side because of the tactics used fighting the war has no moral standing which is superior to the other side. While there have been civilized standards on how to fight war, it changes over time and in this case both sides violate current conventions.

Donald Rumsfield once stated that you go to war with what you have. The Palestinians only ability to wage war is via the tactic of "terrorism"

My final question, which I am more inclined to observe and listen, is this:

Why should I be more concerned about the tactics that the Palestinians use in fighting this quasi war versus the tactics that Israel uses to defend itself?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:44:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

pot calling the kettle black
pot calling the kettle black
pot calling the kettle black
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:07:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 12:44:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

pot calling the kettle black
pot calling the kettle black
pot calling the kettle black

Wow, you must be a lawyer, because who else could come up with a defense as brilliant as "I know you are but what am I".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:18:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

How can you say I show bias, when I merely am pointing out this is a war. I haven't taken a side to the war partly because I do not recognize the religious claims of the jews or mulsims nor the land claims.

In fact I would surmise if one had to objectively come up with a list of tactics that both sides which are currently deemed inappropriate by today's civil rules of warfare, I think I could come up with a more honest list.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

peace out boy scout.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 2:56:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 1:07:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:44:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

pot calling the kettle black
pot calling the kettle black
pot calling the kettle black

Wow, you must be a lawyer, because who else could come up with a defense as brilliant as "I know you are but what am I".

And you must be an idiot, who else would support Israel AND try to be anti-war at the same time?
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 4:16:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 1:18:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

How can you say I show bias, when I merely am pointing out this is a war. I haven't taken a side to the war partly because I do not recognize the religious claims of the jews or mulsims nor the land claims.

The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

In fact I would surmise if one had to objectively come up with a list of tactics that both sides which are currently deemed inappropriate by today's civil rules of warfare, I think I could come up with a more honest list.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

peace out boy scout.
I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 4:18:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 2:56:39 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:07:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:44:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

pot calling the kettle black
pot calling the kettle black
pot calling the kettle black

Wow, you must be a lawyer, because who else could come up with a defense as brilliant as "I know you are but what am I".

And you must be an idiot, who else would support Israel AND try to be anti-war at the same time?
When it comes to being anti-war, Israel is the lesser of the two evils.

Furthermore, I never said I was anti-war. I am not pro-war either. I support war when it is necessary to the interests of the nation going to war (and by nation I mean the people not the government).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 4:51:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

The "Jews" who founded Palestine made religious claims. The first Israeli Prime Minster, Ben Gurion, told the native Palestinians that the only documentation he needed was "the Bible".

The Mandate for Palestine specifically allowed Jews to migrate to Palestine, to establish a Jewish home WITHIN Palestine. The Allies who granted this to the Jews, specifically substituted "Jewish home" in place of "Jewish state", and intended for the Jews to be one of several communities within Palestine, not the only community.

Furthermore, the British Mandate had a condition for Jewish colonization to Palestine, saying that nothing may be done which infringes upon the rights of the native populations. The UN, International Court of Justice, and Human rights organizations, and most Israeli's themselves, agree that the Palestinians have had their rights infringed upon.

Your comment on "Muslims" is similarly off base.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

First point. Various Human Rights Organizations and UN investigators, have found "no evidence" that Palestinian fighters consistently use "Human-Shields" during combat. This is an un-confirmed myth circulated by Israel, that they use to justify bombing UN facilities, Hospitals, mental health-clinics, chicken-farms, sewage-lines, and more. This is why Israel is frequently condemned for its horrendous treatment and attacks on Palestinian civilians.

Second point. Transjordan (Jordan) was never considered part of historical Palestine, by the Allies, British, or Palestinians. In fact, it was only the early Zionist leaders, who proposed including parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, under "Palestine". The British refused.

Third point. The 1948 partition you speak off was only accepted by the Jewish leadership as a strategic formality. Ben Gurion, the Prime Minister of Israel, made several statements claiming that they would use this partition to gain strength and land, which they would use to expand into the "rest" of Palestine. The need to check this aggression, and secure parts of Palestine for themselves, was the reason the Arab armies attacked.

Fourth point. Months before any Arab army set foot in Palestine, Israel began the ethnic-cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes and villages. Roughly 300,000 Palestinians had been expelled before the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, an act that drew widespread condemnation from the UN, and a resolution establishing the right of Palestinians to return to their homes.

This "Israel has always been the victim" and "Muslims are land-mongers" is amusing, as the UN (every country except Israel) and World Court classify the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem as illegally occupied Palestinian land. This land was captured in the 1967 war, a war NO COUNTRY except Israel said was clearly defensive.

Israel remains the major obstacle to peace today. The entire world (every country except Israel), the UN, International Court of Justice, Human Rights Organizations, the Palestinian people, and arguably Hamas, have accepted a 2-state solution on the legal 1967 borders. Israel refuses, citing security concerns, despite the fact that every Arab/Muslim country has agreed to friendly relations with Israel, once they return the stolen land, and end the occupation.

I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

LOL yes. Everyone who criticizes Israel's policies are raging anti-Semites, just trying to stick it to those darn Jews.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 6:18:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 4:51:17 PM, HPWKA wrote:
The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

The "Jews" who founded Palestine made religious claims.
Jews did not found Palestine, the British did on behalf of the Jews, after the Ottoman Empire was dissolved.
The first Israeli Prime Minster, Ben Gurion, told the native Palestinians that the only documentation he needed was "the Bible".

Despite the fact that "the Bible" is Christian not Jewish, I would be interested in reading the full quote.... Preferably cited with a creditable source.

The Mandate for Palestine specifically allowed Jews to migrate to Palestine, to establish a Jewish home WITHIN Palestine. The Allies who granted this to the Jews, specifically substituted "Jewish home" in place of "Jewish state", and intended for the Jews to be one of several communities within Palestine, not the only community.

You are aware that Israel has no national religion, right? The so called "Palestinians" are the only ones pushing for a single religious-community.

Furthermore, the British Mandate had a condition for Jewish colonization to Palestine, saying that nothing may be done which infringes upon the rights of the native populations.
And nothing was done.
The UN, International Court of Justice, and Human rights organizations, and most Israeli's themselves, agree that the Palestinians have had their rights infringed upon.

Please cite a source when making such bold claims. The only time you don't need a source, is when drawing a logical conclusions from common knowledge, or a mutually agreed upon fact. I could make the claim "90% of the world supports Isreal and only 60% of Muslims support Palestine" but without a source it is just a baseless assertion.
Your comment on "Muslims" is similarly off base.

What comment?
I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

First point. Various Human Rights Organizations and UN investigators, have found "no evidence" that Palestinian fighters consistently use "Human-Shields" during combat.
Yeah keep it vague so I can't fact check you....
Hamas has even admitted to the use of human shields.

This is an un-confirmed myth circulated by Israel, that they use to justify bombing UN facilities, Hospitals, mental health-clinics, chicken-farms, sewage-lines, and more. This is why Israel is frequently condemned for its horrendous treatment and attacks on Palestinian civilians.

That is Palestinian propaganda.
Second point. Transjordan (Jordan) was never considered part of historical Palestine, by the Allies, British, or Palestinians. In fact, it was only the early Zionist leaders, who proposed including parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, under "Palestine". The British refused.

BS. The British Mandate for Palestine was created in 1920 and Transjordan was created in 1921 using 77% of the original British Mandate; the other 23% was Jewish Palestine.

Third point. The 1948 partition you speak off was only accepted by the Jewish leadership as a strategic formality. Ben Gurion, the Prime Minister of Israel, made several statements claiming that they would use this partition to gain strength and land, which they would use to expand into the "rest" of Palestine. The need to check this aggression, and secure parts of Palestine for themselves, was the reason the Arab armies attacked.

Again, please source your accusations. When I Googled you claims I didn't get jack. So either you are making this sh!t up as you go along, or you are referring to some obscure source that is hard to find.
Fourth point. Months before any Arab army set foot in Palestine, Israel began the ethnic-cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes and villages.
So months before Israel declared independence? Wouldn't it be the British who did the ethnic cleansing than?
Roughly 300,000 Palestinians had been expelled before the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, an act that drew widespread condemnation from the UN, and a resolution establishing the right of Palestinians to return to their homes.

Seeing as the war started as soon as the State of Israel was created, I find it hard to pin this on the Israeli government.
This "Israel has always been the victim" and "Muslims are land-mongers" is amusing, as the UN (every country except Israel) and World Court classify the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem as illegally occupied Palestinian land. This land was captured in the 1967 war, a war NO COUNTRY except Israel said was clearly defensive.

1st off; I highly doubt every country in the UN (including the US) classify Isreal as illegally occupying the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem.
Furthermore, as a Human rights violator themselves, I find it hard to accept the UN as a credible judge of human rights violations.
Most importantly, the 1979 Egypt"Israel Peace Treaty which established the border of Egypt and Israel (as opposed to the previous armistice lines) set Egypt's border with Israel to where it was in 1906 with the Ottoman Empire. In the treaty the Egyptians also renounce their claims to Gaza.
In the 1994 Israel"Jordan peace treaty, the border between Israel and Jordan became the Jordan river; when the river changes shape, so does their border.
Israel remains the major obstacle to peace today. [more assertions and ignorant rants].

Israel has been open to peace since day one. It has always been the so called "Palestinians" who refuse to accept a mutually beneficial agreement. They either want all of the land, or they make outrageous demands that they know would be rejected.

LOL yes. Everyone who criticizes Israel's policies are raging anti-Semites, just trying to stick it to those darn Jews.
Not what I said. I said I have yet to meet someone who is anti-Israel and is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.
"at-least to some degree" =/= "raging".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 6:20:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 4:16:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:18:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

How can you say I show bias, when I merely am pointing out this is a war. I haven't taken a side to the war partly because I do not recognize the religious claims of the jews or mulsims nor the land claims.

The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

In fact I would surmise if one had to objectively come up with a list of tactics that both sides which are currently deemed inappropriate by today's civil rules of warfare, I think I could come up with a more honest list.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

peace out boy scout.
I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

And that kids is what we call selection bias and confirmation bias!
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 6:23:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 6:20:17 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 4:16:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:18:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

How can you say I show bias, when I merely am pointing out this is a war. I haven't taken a side to the war partly because I do not recognize the religious claims of the jews or mulsims nor the land claims.

The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

In fact I would surmise if one had to objectively come up with a list of tactics that both sides which are currently deemed inappropriate by today's civil rules of warfare, I think I could come up with a more honest list.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

peace out boy scout.
I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

And that kids is what we call selection bias and confirmation bias!

I agree slo was being bias..... and I'm not a kid.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 7:44:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 6:23:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:20:17 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 4:16:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:18:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

How can you say I show bias, when I merely am pointing out this is a war. I haven't taken a side to the war partly because I do not recognize the religious claims of the jews or mulsims nor the land claims.

The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

In fact I would surmise if one had to objectively come up with a list of tactics that both sides which are currently deemed inappropriate by today's civil rules of warfare, I think I could come up with a more honest list.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

peace out boy scout.
I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

And that kids is what we call selection bias and confirmation bias!

I agree slo was being bias..... and I'm not a kid.

1) I was clearly reffering to you ergo why I quoted you
2) slo's opinions are fine. Nothing wrong with bias as long as they are accounted for
3) you are in fact acting childish. Thats your choice to act that way. We disagree quit taking it personally it happens all the time
4) objective facts of this issue sided with slo and not you: palestines been handed a raw deal ever since post war era
And finally 5) before you go all grammar nazi on me I am replying from work on my mobile device.

Goodday sir.
Thank you for voting!
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 8:13:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Despite the fact that "the Bible" is Christian not Jewish, I would be interested in reading the full quote.... Preferably cited with a creditable source.

"When a British royal commission came to Jerusalem at the end of 1936 to weigh the future of the Mandate, I said to it: "Our Mandate is the Bible".". David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

You are aware that Israel has no national religion, right? The so called "Palestinians" are the only ones pushing for a single religious-community.

This has nothing to do with what I posted, but I'll humor you. Israel's flag is the "Jewish star", and its laws define itself as a Jewish state. The founders of Israel designated it a Jewish homeland, and to this day, there are many laws in Israel that discriminate against non-Jews. The Palestinians can push for whatever they want, as long as its legal.

Furthermore, the British Mandate had a condition for Jewish colonization to Palestine, saying that nothing may be done which infringes upon the rights of the native populations.
And nothing was done.

Nothing was done? 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes before the Arab-Israeli war even began.

The UN, International Court of Justice, and Human rights organizations, and most Israeli's themselves, agree that the Palestinians have had their rights infringed upon.

Please cite a source when making such bold claims.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, "has on several occasions described the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention".

The International Court of Justice, "concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law".

UN Security Council determines, "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity".

Below are links for more resolutions condemning Israel, and the overwhelming majorities that vote for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

First point. Various Human Rights Organizations and UN investigators, have found "no evidence" that Palestinian fighters consistently use "Human-Shields" during combat.
Yeah keep it vague so I can't fact check you....

"Israeli troops forced Palestinians to stay in one room of their home while turning the rest of the house into a base and sniper position, effectively using the families, both adults and children, as human shields and putting them at risk. The report also criticized Hamas for human rights violations, but "found no evidence Palestinian fighters directed civilians to shield military objectives from attacks, forced them to stay in buildings used by militants, or prevented them from leaving commandeered buildings". -Amnesty International Report

Other Human Rights Organizations, as well as the UN Goldstone Report, found systematic use of Human Shields by Israel, but not of Hamas or Palestinians.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

BS. The British Mandate for Palestine was created in 1920 and Transjordan was created in 1921 using 77% of the original British Mandate; the other 23% was Jewish Palestine.

False. Read post #169 on this page. http://www.debate.org...

Third point. The 1948 partition you speak off was only accepted by the Jewish leadership as a strategic formality. Ben Gurion, the Prime Minister of Israel, made several statements claiming that they would use this partition to gain strength and land, which they would use to expand into the "rest" of Palestine. The need to check this aggression, and secure parts of Palestine for themselves, was the reason the Arab armies attacked.

Again, please source your accusations. When I Googled you claims I didn't get jack. So either you are making this sh!t up as you go along, or you are referring to some obscure source that is hard to find.

"In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that "after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine". - Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle

"Menachem Begin declared that: "The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people." - Fateful Triangle

http://www.ifamericansknew.org...

Fourth point. Months before any Arab army set foot in Palestine, Israel began the ethnic-cleansing of the Palestinians from their homes and villages.
So months before Israel declared independence? Wouldn't it be the British who did the ethnic cleansing than?

No.

Roughly 300,000 Palestinians had been expelled before the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, an act that drew widespread condemnation from the UN, and a resolution establishing the right of Palestinians to return to their homes.

Seeing as the war started as soon as the State of Israel was created, I find it hard to pin this on the Israeli government.

Not on the "Israeli" government, the operative Jewish government at the time, as well as the Jewish military units (Irgun, Hagganah, etc.).

1st off; I highly doubt every country in the UN (including the US) classify Isreal as illegally occupying the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem.

Read my links, look it up, do some research, and get educated.

Furthermore, as a Human rights violator themselves, I find it hard to accept the UN as a credible judge of human rights violations.

Fallacy. Because countries have committed Human Rights Violations, they are forever unable to be "credible judges" of other Human Rights Violations.

Most importantly, the 1979 Egypt"Israel Peace Treaty which established the border of Egypt and Israel (as opposed to the previous armistice lines) set Egypt's border with Israel to where it was in 1906 with the Ottoman Empire. In the treaty the Egyptians also renounce their claims to Gaza
In the 1994 Israel"Jordan peace treaty, the border between Israel and Jordan became the Jordan river; when the river changes shape, so does their border.

Correct, because Egypt never fully annexed Gaza, it was under the control of the Palestinians. Jordan also renounced the West Bank, but so a Palestinian state could form, not so Israel could continue its illegal occupation.

Israel has been open to peace since day one. It has always been the so called "Palestinians" who refuse to accept a mutually beneficial agreement. They either want all of the land, or they make outrageous demands that they know would be rejected.

Well, the Palestinians want "all the land", as in, they want the land that the whole world, UN, World Court, and Human Rights Organizations say legally belongs to the Palestinians. Israel's official position is NO to these legal 1967 borders.

And sorry. You didn't call us all raging anti-Semites, just wish-washy anti-Semites. Big difference, and clearly a much more credible statement lol.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 10:34:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 7:44:38 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:23:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:20:17 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 4:16:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:18:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

How can you say I show bias, when I merely am pointing out this is a war. I haven't taken a side to the war partly because I do not recognize the religious claims of the jews or mulsims nor the land claims.

The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

In fact I would surmise if one had to objectively come up with a list of tactics that both sides which are currently deemed inappropriate by today's civil rules of warfare, I think I could come up with a more honest list.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

peace out boy scout.
I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

And that kids is what we call selection bias and confirmation bias!

I agree slo was being bias..... and I'm not a kid.

1) I was clearly reffering to you ergo why I quoted you
I know; apparently you don't get sarcasm.
2) slo's opinions are fine. Nothing wrong with bias as long as they are accounted for
LMAO. This should be on the weekly stupid.
3) you are in fact acting childish. Thats your choice to act that way. We disagree quit taking it personally it happens all the time
You are acting more childish than anyone here. You are not contributing to the discussion other than a commentary regarding the people actually discussion the topic at hand.
4) objective facts of this issue sided with slo and not you: palestines been handed a raw deal ever since post war era
That is a subjective opinion. The Palestinians don't have a raw deal, and the BOP is on you to prove that they did, not on me to prove that they didn't.
And finally 5) before you go all grammar nazi on me I am replying from work on my mobile device.

Goodday sir.
Yeah, because I am always correcting people's grammar. -_- Again sarcasm.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 10:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 8:13:33 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Despite the fact that "the Bible" is Christian not Jewish, I would be interested in reading the full quote.... Preferably cited with a creditable source.

"When a British royal commission came to Jerusalem at the end of 1936 to weigh the future of the Mandate, I said to it: "Our Mandate is the Bible".". David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Israel was established in 1948. He was not the Prime minister at the time. You cannot hold a politician's personal views a decade prior to coming to office as a reflection of their public policy; especially when their personal views were in regards to a territory not a government that had yet to be established.

I will respond to the rest later, I have to get ready for work. I'm closing tonight.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 11:15:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 10:34:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 7:44:38 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:23:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:20:17 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 4:16:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:18:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

How can you say I show bias, when I merely am pointing out this is a war. I haven't taken a side to the war partly because I do not recognize the religious claims of the jews or mulsims nor the land claims.

The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

In fact I would surmise if one had to objectively come up with a list of tactics that both sides which are currently deemed inappropriate by today's civil rules of warfare, I think I could come up with a more honest list.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

peace out boy scout.
I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

And that kids is what we call selection bias and confirmation bias!

I agree slo was being bias..... and I'm not a kid.

1) I was clearly reffering to you ergo why I quoted you
I know; apparently you don't get sarcasm.
No, I just cannot tell the tone you're using on the internet.
2) slo's opinions are fine. Nothing wrong with bias as long as they are accounted for
LMAO. This should be on the weekly stupid.
Uhh, it's called normative research, which is the opposite in positive research, the fact that you think this should be in the weekly stupid makes me believe that your statement ought to be in the weekly stupid.
3) you are in fact acting childish. Thats your choice to act that way. We disagree quit taking it personally it happens all the time
You are acting more childish than anyone here. You are not contributing to the discussion other than a commentary regarding the people actually discussion the topic at hand.
You started it!
4) objective facts of this issue sided with slo and not you: palestines been handed a raw deal ever since post war era
That is a subjective opinion. The Palestinians don't have a raw deal, and the BOP is on you to prove that they did, not on me to prove that they didn't.
So the violation of the British Mandate For Palestine by installing Israel through the UN somehow is not a raw deal?
Put it to you this way: I live in my house, for 500 years. I sell it to you, and you live in it for 1,500. Suddenly, a knock on your door and SURPRISE! It's me! With a gun in your face telling you that the little girls room is now all yours but the rest of the house is MINE is somehow not a raw deal?
And finally 5) before you go all grammar nazi on me I am replying from work on my mobile device.

Goodday sir.
Yeah, because I am always correcting people's grammar. -_- Again sarcasm.

If not grammar then definitions, you semantic playing nut-job.
Thank you for voting!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 1:29:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite

http://img.pandawhale.com...

Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 1:31:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 4:16:51 PM, DanT wrote:

I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

Is the Weekly Stupid still going on?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 1:37:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

Everyone knows that ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 1:42:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 9:48:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
*Everyone knew that this was happening and will continue to happen.

*Everyone knows that Israel will not seriously discuss peace until they have settled all the lands they want (much easier to negotiate people staying when they are living there than when they are not living there)

* Everyone knows that Palestinian Authority will not give up claim on East Jerusalem (maybe bits of west bank but never EJ)

* Everyone knows that a very large chunk of Palestinians support warfare against Israel. (I just read an opinion piece in Bloomberg that stated 29% Palestinians support Hamas who has a warfare agenda versus a two state solution. Not certain if accurate, but we can all agree there is a rather large %)

* Everyone knows that this is more about religion than any side will admit. Netenyahu just requested that Palestinian Authority agree to recognize that Israel is a Jewish state.
http://www.nytimes.com...

A very odd request especially when the PA has already recognized the right of Israel to exist. Makes one wonder what Israel would do should the Jewish majority be threatened to become a minority in Israel?

* Everyone knows that the main argument that gets one to support a side over the other is very arbitrary and really has not bearing on the end solution.

* Until both sides get to a point they can give up previously stated "ungive-up-able" requirements, we are in a quasi state of war.

What does all that mean?

What this means is that this is war. Anyone who picks a side because of the tactics used fighting the war has no moral standing which is superior to the other side. While there have been civilized standards on how to fight war, it changes over time and in this case both sides violate current conventions.

Donald Rumsfield once stated that you go to war with what you have. The Palestinians only ability to wage war is via the tactic of "terrorism"

My final question, which I am more inclined to observe and listen, is this:

Why should I be more concerned about the tactics that the Palestinians use in fighting this quasi war versus the tactics that Israel uses to defend itself?

I am doubtful that Israel or any other state would stop or be "satisfied" after a certain amount of land-grabbing.

Exactly what to do about this is difficult to say though. What makes Israeli land-grabbing any more or less justifiable than land-grabbing by other countries?

On your final question, I think the "war on terror" is a gigantic misnomer and if it constitutes strategy, extremely poor strategy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 6:34:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 1:37:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

Everyone knows that ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.

^^

see ..
he really did start it too!
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 11:02:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 11:15:13 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/11/2014 10:34:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 7:44:38 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:23:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:20:17 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 4:16:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:18:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

How can you say I show bias, when I merely am pointing out this is a war. I haven't taken a side to the war partly because I do not recognize the religious claims of the jews or mulsims nor the land claims.

The "Jews" are not making religious claims. The Mandate for Palestine was created specifically for their settlement. The Muslims have always been and always will be the instigators of this conflict.

In fact I would surmise if one had to objectively come up with a list of tactics that both sides which are currently deemed inappropriate by today's civil rules of warfare, I think I could come up with a more honest list.

I ask a honest question. Why should I rate the Palestinians tatics more harshly than the Israeli tatics?

Because Palestine propagandizes every aspect of the conflict, to the point of indoctrinating children. Because Palestine uses human shields to wage war upon a sovereign nation, than condemns that sovereign nation for returning fire into a populated area. Because Palestine bombs schools and hospitals, and uses women and children as suicide bombers. Because the Mandate for Palestine was created from a fraction of Ottoman Syria (the rest of which became Muslim) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home. The Muslims were dissatisfied so the British sovereigns divided Palestine into a Jewish Palestine and Muslim Palestine; the Muslim Palestine was Transjordan and the Jewish Palestine was Palestine. The Muslims were still dissatisfied, so the UN proposed dividing Palestine up again, thereby granting the Muslims even more land; the Jewish community accepted it, but the Muslim community rejected it, believing they should control all of Palestine. The Muslims attacked a Jewish bus, thereby starting the Palestinian civil war. Almost as soon as Israel was created their Muslim neighbors invaded. Israel has always been the victims, and the Muslims have always been the land mongers, despite Palestine's propaganda. The PLA was even created by the Israeli government, because Israel has always been the side pushing for peace. Israel just won't accept terms that would endanger Israel's existence (such as borders that would encourage an attack on Israel, or the dissolution of the Israeli state)
I honestly don't expect much from you Dan in replying this. Your use of anti-semite accusations pretty much demonstrate your bias in this matter.

peace out boy scout.
I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

And that kids is what we call selection bias and confirmation bias!

I agree slo was being bias..... and I'm not a kid.

1) I was clearly reffering to you ergo why I quoted you
I know; apparently you don't get sarcasm.
No, I just cannot tell the tone you're using on the internet.
2) slo's opinions are fine. Nothing wrong with bias as long as they are accounted for
LMAO. This should be on the weekly stupid.
Uhh, it's called normative research, which is the opposite in positive research, the fact that you think this should be in the weekly stupid makes me believe that your statement ought to be in the weekly stupid.
To believe bias, even when acknowledged (which he did not do), is OK when dissecting a subject such as this, is insane. So long as you are biased, your conclusion will reflect that bias.

3) you are in fact acting childish. Thats your choice to act that way. We disagree quit taking it personally it happens all the time
You are acting more childish than anyone here. You are not contributing to the discussion other than a commentary regarding the people actually discussion the topic at hand.
You started it!
You know that is exactly what a child would say.
4) objective facts of this issue sided with slo and not you: palestines been handed a raw deal ever since post war era
That is a subjective opinion. The Palestinians don't have a raw deal, and the BOP is on you to prove that they did, not on me to prove that they didn't.
So the violation of the British Mandate For Palestine by installing Israel through the UN somehow is not a raw deal?
They didn't do that. Israel was established when the British Mandate expired. All of the trust territories after WWI had an expiration date. The Mandate expired at Midnight, and the State of Israel is what succeeded it.
Put it to you this way: I live in my house, for 500 years. I sell it to you, and you live in it for 1,500. Suddenly, a knock on your door and SURPRISE! It's me! With a gun in your face telling you that the little girls room is now all yours but the rest of the house is MINE is somehow not a raw deal?
That is not what happened.
You live in a house for 500 years. You lose the house to foreclosure. The Bank sells the house to me. I live in the house for 1500 years, and than foreclose. The bank sells the house to Slo, who allows me to rent a portion of the house, while you rent the other portion. Slo gives the house to you, and you allow me to stay in the house so long as I live by your rules.
That is the situation, with me as the Muslims, you as the Jews, and Slo as the British.

And finally 5) before you go all grammar nazi on me I am replying from work on my mobile device.

Goodday sir.
Yeah, because I am always correcting people's grammar. -_- Again sarcasm.

If not grammar then definitions, you semantic playing nut-job.

Yeah, keep using slander and ad hominem attacks, it really shows the strength of your arguments when you have to resort to such tactics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 11:04:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 1:37:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

Everyone knows that ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.

I was making a point about slo's second post, hence the similar formatting. Of course you didn't bother to read that, you just saw an opportunity to jump on my case as always.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 11:33:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

Looks like solid ad homs to me man .. dare I say "pot calling the kettle black" again?

I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

another ad hom... talk about childish!

And that kids is what we call selection bias and confirmation bias!

I agree slo was being bias..... and I'm not a kid.

1) I was clearly reffering to you ergo why I quoted you
I know; apparently you don't get sarcasm.
No, I just cannot tell the tone you're using on the internet.
2) slo's opinions are fine. Nothing wrong with bias as long as they are accounted for
LMAO. This should be on the weekly stupid.
Uhh, it's called normative research, which is the opposite in positive research, the fact that you think this should be in the weekly stupid makes me believe that your statement ought to be in the weekly stupid.
To believe bias, even when acknowledged (which he did not do), is OK when dissecting a subject such as this, is insane. So long as you are biased, your conclusion will reflect that bias.
This is why we're attacking you: say you have all objective facts and tell one person in that region they must leave because it belongs to someone else. Do you think they're gonna accept that? NOPE.
Even then you did nothing to refute the fact that there is nothing wrong with bias. All you did was claim it was insane, which is your opinion and not fact.
3) you are in fact acting childish. Thats your choice to act that way. We disagree quit taking it personally it happens all the time
You are acting more childish than anyone here. You are not contributing to the discussion other than a commentary regarding the people actually discussion the topic at hand.
You started it!
You know that is exactly what a child would say.
You know that was a joke ... based on truth (see above)
You actually legit started it. And now your being a dick.
4) objective facts of this issue sided with slo and not you: palestines been handed a raw deal ever since post war era
That is a subjective opinion. The Palestinians don't have a raw deal, and the BOP is on you to prove that they did, not on me to prove that they didn't.
So the violation of the British Mandate For Palestine by installing Israel through the UN somehow is not a raw deal?
They didn't do that. Israel was established when the British Mandate expired.
All of the trust territories after WWI had an expiration date. The Mandate expired at Midnight, and the State of Israel is what succeeded it.

Yes they did, under Mandatory Palestine when the Civil War breaks out it is an undisputed fact that the British were to maintain order and simply up and left instead of doing so (min interventions to be more specific); the Jewish forces eventually take over and begin the Arab exodus. You should know this. THEN Ben-Gurion issues the mandate forming Israel. Not the other way around.

That is not what happened.
You live in a house for 500 years. You lose the house to foreclosure.
The Bank sells the house to me. I live in the house for 1500 years, and than foreclose. The bank sells the house to Slo, who allows me to rent a portion of the house, while you rent the other portion. Slo gives the house to you, and you allow me to stay in the house so long as I live by your rules.
That is the situation, with me as the Muslims, you as the Jews, and Slo as the British.

...admittedly, that's actually a pretty good example.

And finally 5) before you go all grammar nazi on me I am replying from work on my mobile device.

Goodday sir.
Yeah, because I am always correcting people's grammar. -_- Again sarcasm.

If not grammar then definitions, you semantic playing nut-job.

Yeah, keep using slander and ad hominem attacks, it really shows the strength of your arguments when you have to resort to such tactics.

You are a semantic player .. shall I visit your forum history while we're at it?
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:04:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 11:33:01 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

Looks like solid ad homs to me man .. dare I say "pot calling the kettle black" again?

Again, it was a satiric comment regarding slo's 2nd post.
I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic to at-least some degree.

another ad hom... talk about childish!
Not an ad hominem, it is an observation. I did not say "everyone who sides with Palestine is anti-Semitic" I said ">I have yet to meet someone who sides with Palestine who is not also anti-Semitic"

And that kids is what we call selection bias and confirmation bias!

I agree slo was being bias..... and I'm not a kid.

1) I was clearly reffering to you ergo why I quoted you
I know; apparently you don't get sarcasm.
No, I just cannot tell the tone you're using on the internet.
2) slo's opinions are fine. Nothing wrong with bias as long as they are accounted for
LMAO. This should be on the weekly stupid.
Uhh, it's called normative research, which is the opposite in positive research, the fact that you think this should be in the weekly stupid makes me believe that your statement ought to be in the weekly stupid.
To believe bias, even when acknowledged (which he did not do), is OK when dissecting a subject such as this, is insane. So long as you are biased, your conclusion will reflect that bias.
This is why we're attacking you: say you have all objective facts and tell one person in that region they must leave because it belongs to someone else. Do you think they're gonna accept that? NOPE.
No-one is saying they have to leave, they just have to accept the new government. If they want a Muslim government, they should move to a Muslim country.
Even then you did nothing to refute the fact that there is nothing wrong with bias. All you did was claim it was insane, which is your opinion and not fact.
I did not just claim it was insane, I also pointed out the consequences of bias.
3) you are in fact acting childish. Thats your choice to act that way. We disagree quit taking it personally it happens all the time
You are acting more childish than anyone here. You are not contributing to the discussion other than a commentary regarding the people actually discussion the topic at hand.
You started it!
You know that is exactly what a child would say.
You know that was a joke ... based on truth (see above)
You actually legit started it. And now your being a dick.
Again with the ad hominem.
4) objective facts of this issue sided with slo and not you: palestines been handed a raw deal ever since post war era
That is a subjective opinion. The Palestinians don't have a raw deal, and the BOP is on you to prove that they did, not on me to prove that they didn't.
So the violation of the British Mandate For Palestine by installing Israel through the UN somehow is not a raw deal?
They didn't do that. Israel was established when the British Mandate expired.
All of the trust territories after WWI had an expiration date. The Mandate expired at Midnight, and the State of Israel is what succeeded it.

Yes they did, under Mandatory Palestine when the Civil War breaks out it is an undisputed fact that the British were to maintain order and simply up and left instead of doing so (min interventions to be more specific); the Jewish forces eventually take over and begin the Arab exodus. You should know this. THEN Ben-Gurion issues the mandate forming Israel. Not the other way around.

The Arabs started the civil war; they drew first blood. The State of Israel did not arise as a result of the civil war; just because the civil war lasted until the Mandate's expiration, does not mean the succeeding state was a result of the war.
That is not what happened.
You live in a house for 500 years. You lose the house to foreclosure.
The Bank sells the house to me. I live in the house for 1500 years, and than foreclose. The bank sells the house to Slo, who allows me to rent a portion of the house, while you rent the other portion. Slo gives the house to you, and you allow me to stay in the house so long as I live by your rules.
That is the situation, with me as the Muslims, you as the Jews, and Slo as the British.

...admittedly, that's actually a pretty good example.
Thank you.

And finally 5) before you go all grammar nazi on me I am replying from work on my mobile device.

Goodday sir.
Yeah, because I am always correcting people's grammar. -_- Again sarcasm.

If not grammar then definitions, you semantic playing nut-job.

Yeah, keep using slander and ad hominem attacks, it really shows the strength of your arguments when you have to resort to such tactics.

You are a semantic player .. shall I visit your forum history while we're at it?
I am not a semantic player. People mis-attribute that fallacy all the time.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 1:34:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 11:04:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:37:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

Everyone knows that ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.

I was making a point about slo's second post, hence the similar formatting. Of course you didn't bother to read that, you just saw an opportunity to jump on my case as always.

http://www.debate.org...

Arguing with you is like arguing with a rotten turnip. In the end, arguing is not going to change the fact that the solution is to take out the garbage.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 1:48:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 1:34:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2014 11:04:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:37:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

Everyone knows that ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.

I was making a point about slo's second post, hence the similar formatting. Of course you didn't bother to read that, you just saw an opportunity to jump on my case as always.

http://www.debate.org...

Arguing with you is like arguing with a rotten turnip. In the end, arguing is not going to change the fact that the solution is to take out the garbage.

You responded to his post after responding to mine, which leads me to conclude you read mine first, responded, than read his post. You are just irritated because I hit the nail on the head.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 1:49:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 1:48:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:34:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2014 11:04:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:37:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/10/2014 12:36:13 PM, DanT wrote:
Everyone knew slo would show bias
Everyone knew slo is a pro-Palestinian anti-Semite
Everyone knew slo cannot look at these events objectively

Everyone knows that ad hominem is not a valid form of argumentation.

I was making a point about slo's second post, hence the similar formatting. Of course you didn't bother to read that, you just saw an opportunity to jump on my case as always.

http://www.debate.org...

Arguing with you is like arguing with a rotten turnip. In the end, arguing is not going to change the fact that the solution is to take out the garbage.

You responded to his post after responding to mine, which leads me to conclude you read mine first, responded, than read his post. You are just irritated because I hit the nail on the head.

No, I am irritated because I need to take out the garbage.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?