Northern Gaza Strip Transformed into Open Area for Killing and Destruction

by Des Sat Oct 16, 2004 15:36

A classic example of an IDF anti-terrorist operation. The regrettable loss of life is a price that has to be paid to combat attempts by Palestinian terrorists to attack Israeli people reclaiming the homeland they lost 2000 years ago. With an outstanding and humane leader like Ariel Sharon, the people of Israel will always be safe in their beds. That is when they are not flying F-16's or Helicopter gunships. The attacks on youth clubs are an obvious attempt to get the terrorists before they grow up. You just can't be too careful. Shalom all!!!!!

by Mike Sat Oct 16, 2004 15:42

"97 Palestinians have been killed, including 49 civilians, 25 of whom are children. "

So in actions such as firefights in a crowded urban area the "collateral damage" (civilians hit instead of fighters) is 50%.

We need discussion about what our expectations should be in a situation such as that and consider carefully whether we would find the alternatives preferrabel of worse. Presumably most of us reading stuff on IMC would prefer that the Israelis get out and stay out of the Palestinian areas, evacuate the "settlers", and allow the Palestinians to form their own state to live in peace with the Israelis IF THEY CAN.

So we nered to consider the likely outcomes if this is done without some kind of settlement of the conflict. Some group or other that doesn't accept the "partition" or for internal political reasons sets up a rocket launcher or mortar tube and begins bombarding across the border. The Israelis should NOT do as they are doing now, sending in a raid to try to take out that posiition with limited civilian losses -- yes? They should act "properly" according to accepted military custom of who is considered responsible for civilian casualties resutlitn from improper siting of batteries. They should simply have one of their batteries open counterfire (the Israelis have decent radar fire control) and take out the opposing artillery. Of course then we won't be seeing civilian collateral casualties as low as 50%, will we? It'd be more like 90-95% and particularly gruesome if that mortar tube or rocket launcher was set up in a school yard.

No -- of course that isn't what we would want. The point I am trying to make is that for us (outsiders) we need to clarify in our minds exactly what it is that we want the Israelis to do (or not do) in this or that situation. We will also need to take into account that it isn't only the Israelis who are making choices and that ocnflicts are rarely actually just two sides >

We might need to carefully consider the sad possibility that the status quo, bad as it is, might be preferable to some of the likely alternatives and that THIS is the reason we do not see progress in solving the conflict.

by Eoin Sat Oct 16, 2004 16:55

1. Israel must pull back it's troops and evacuate it's Jewish colonies. Until they're all behind the Green Line there's going to be continued terrorism on both sides.

2. Having returned to their country, the Israelis should release political prisoners, perhaps banning them from re-entry into Israel if they like (that's their choice).

3. Palestinian and Israeli movements for peace and reconciliation need HEAPS of support - financial and political from the international community - to help try to move on. The right of return, or reparations for Palestinians who's property was taken will need to be worked out too.

4. In the event someone within the palestinian areas has fired over the border into Israel, the Israeli government should investigate at their end, furnish palestinian police with whatever evidence they've got, and press the palestinian authorities to hopefully catch the culprits and see that they're brought before a court of law, etc. If its not working so well Israel could use the International Court of Justice, UN SC, and the UN GA. It should be dealt with as a matter of international law enforcement, there are heaps of treaties to help them if they get stuck.

by Noel Sat Oct 16, 2004 17:22

Perhaps if the Palestinian terrorists tried stopping their Jew killing the IDF might not need to respond.

In fact it's a win-win situation for the terrorists. If the IDF don't respond they claim victory. If the IDF do respond and hit innocent civilians they claim victory. These terrorist cowards are causing the deaths of Palestinian civilians by attacking Israel from heavily populated areas, including schools.

Claiming the IDF deliberately target civilians is a disgraceful lie. It's this propaganda which Palestinians are fed day after day. What hope for peace when Palestinian children are used as pawns and shields by terrorists.

"There will be no peace in the Middle East until the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews."

by Nordie Sat Oct 16, 2004 17:42

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_israel_settlements.htm

by TheTroll Sat Oct 16, 2004 17:51

Scapegoting the Palestinian victims of Zionist offenses is back. I never heard anyone scapegoating the Czechs for the destruction Nazis dished out after Czech resistance bombed Nazi occupiers, like so many enablers of ZIonist offenses in Palestine do.

There will not be peace in the middle east until ...???
Define peace for us. Is ZIonist occupation of Palestine "PEACE" in your prejudiced mind. Nazi occupation of blond haired blue eyed Norway wasn't equated with peace. So, how is it that you think the much MUCH more brutal Zionist occupation of Palestinian lands equates to peace? "Peace" to some means appeasment of the ZIonist's continuing, never ending crimes against Palestinians, by thier Palestinian victims is "peace." And even if resistance fighters hadn't faught back against Nazi agressors, nazi occupation of thier homelands didn't equate to "PEACE." So how is it that so many people see it that way in reguards to the ZIonist's bloodsoaked crusade in Palestinian lands???

by Noel Sat Oct 16, 2004 18:17

The state of Israel exists and is recognised as such by all but the most intransigent Arabs.

The Jews aren't going anywhere. So get over it.
The Palestinian terrorists and their supporters need to recognise this basic fact.

Do some homework and check out the aims of Hamas and Al Aqsa, they still want to drive the Jews into the sea. Do you terror supporters not get it? It's nothing to do with settlements outside the green line. It's Jews. Jews in Palestine. That's what their problem is.

by Shay Sat Oct 16, 2004 21:01

At last light at the end of the tunnel!
if more like Walid are brave enough to come forward there is a chink of light


Ex-PLO member warns against Islamic militants





A FORMER member of the PLO has warned the Irish government against giving money to Islamic groups in Ireland until it has first determined whether the groups are also receiving funds from extremist sources in the Middle East.

Mr Walid Shoebat made the comment after a meeting with Department of Foreign Affairs officials yesterday morning.

Mr Shoebat, who was in the PLO from the mid-1970s until 1993, said that in other parts of the Western world Islamic organisations are often funded out of Saudi Arabia which has exported "the most militant form of Islam" all over the world.

He said it was essential that if European governments decide to fund the "ancillary" activities of Islamic groups in the future, such as day schools, they first have to ensure that the groups do not have ties of any sort, financial or otherwise, to militant groups.

Mr Shoebat said that governments had to ask themselves two questions. "Where is the money coming from, and where is the mullah coming from?"

He said it was relatively easy for Islamic groups to apply for funds from the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia in particular, for the building of Mosques and Islamic theological schools.

He claimed that these mosques and schools are then used to spread the most militant forms of Islam.

He pointed out that they had been used in Pakistan as a training ground for the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist group that ruled Afghanistan until it was overthrown by the US.

Mr Shoebat also said that while the vast majority of Muslims are moderate, an increasing number are becoming militant as a result of the funding of mosques by Saudi Arabia.

David Quinn
Religious Affairs Correspondent

by TheTroll Sun Oct 17, 2004 16:50

To those people who have been paying attention, Zionist occupation of Palestinian lands IS the "conflict." It is the only conflict. So when people present the conflict (Zionist occupation ) as a rationalization to appease the Zionist's bloodsoaked crusade, well, they just end up showcasing thier own prejudices. Zionists are murderous thieves, so thier offenses should be appeased. Fine, that is your supposition. Can you add something (ANYTHING) of actual substance to your rant? Put some meat on them bones for us to chew on.

Drive the Jews into the sea? Or drive the Zionist Crusader State out of the Palestinian's homeland? Both statements present the same idea. But one is crap and is dependant on YOUR prejudices. "Drive the Jews into the sea" makes the Palestinians seem offensive. While "Drive the Zionist crusader state out of the Palestinian's homeland" clearly shows the Palestinians as acting defensivly.

Well, your appeasment of the ZIonist's bloodosaked crusade doesn't give ZIonists any "birthright" of murderous theft of ANY portion of the Palestinian's homeland. But thanks for showcasing your own prejudices.

by Shay Sun Oct 17, 2004 18:21

Did you ever listen to Palestinian chants or sermons from the mosques

The word Yahud features as in Kill the Jews never the word Zionists

says it all - once we are are gone you are next unless of course you are not an infidel

by TheTroll Mon Oct 18, 2004 05:24

And when Nazis were murderous thieves of thier neighbor's homelands, you could regularly hear people from all over the world, not just in Nazi occupied lands, saying kill all the Germans. Germans started the great war too. Kill em all.

Now, there are a noted nuber of Palestinians, noted in the media as the rule rather than the exception, saying kill all the Jews. Stop the presses. No, literaly, stop the presses.

by Noel Mon Oct 18, 2004 08:39

The idea that Jews stole Palestine from Palestinians is a fallacy and does the Palestinian people a disservice.

This 'Zionist thieves' nonsense is only used by ignorant fools, who know little of the area's history, choosing to begin Palestinian history at a point which serves their agenda.

The Romans renamed Judea as Palestine in attempts to de-judify the place.
Should your narrative begin there?

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine since biblical times.
Jews helped defend Jerusalem against the crusaders.
Should your narrative begin there?

How about the 1880s? When the first wave of Jewish immigrants from Europe settled in a vastly underpopulated Palestine.
Should your narrative begin there?

The UN partition of 1947. When the area designated as Israel had a huge Jewish majority.
Should your narrative begin there?

The Jews aren't going anywhere so the only hope for peace is a two-state solution.

The Israeli government and people are prepared to share the land with their Palestinian neighbours. Are the Palestinians prepared to allow Jews to live in peace next door?

History suggest otherwise.

by Ali H. Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:32

In the 1920's less that 10% of the population of occupied Palestine (Israel) was Jewish. Israel was planted by the Zionists in the period between the 1920s and today often with people with very dubious Jewish connects fleeing the Soviet Union. Do you suggest to us that these white colonists should be allowed to get away with gross land theft? The vast majority of Palestinians will settle for a fully independent state alongside an Israel inside its in pre-1967 borders. The real issue is not the Palestinians but the Zionist squatters who want to take all of the Palestinian lands and to add insult to injury are unwilling to either acknowledge their crime of ethnic cleansing upon which their state is built nor pay reparations to those expelled from their homes, farms and businesses! Try a fair peace with reparations and you will find that the Palestinians will quickly change from making war to making a living!

by Noel Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:23

Ever heard of Taba?
And I'm not talking about the latest Jew killing atrocity carried out there.

No. I'm talking of the negotiations between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat.
Israel proposed a very generous agreement which Arafat rejected. No counter proposals offered, just rejection.

The Saudi Prince Bandar called the rejection of Taba a crime against the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian people could have had a state then but were ill-served by their corrupt leadership.

If Palestinians reject such a treaty, universally accepted as fair, what will they accept? Is driving the Jews into the sea the only acceptable proposition?

by eastern eye Mon Oct 18, 2004 13:55

"Israel was planted by the Zionists in the period between the 1920s and today often with people with very dubious Jewish connects fleeing the Soviet Union".

Israel has a law.
It's a unique law in the world and it is called the 'law of return'. since Israel see itself as the state of every Jew in the world, if he or her wish, he can immigrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen.
How would you decide who is a Jew and who isn't? The Jewish tradition declares it as someone who's mother is Jewish.
The Nazis declared a Jew as anyone that one of his/hers grand-parents was Jewish.
Thus many people died, considered Jews by the Nazis and completely gentiles by the Jews.
The law of return allows anyone that considered a Jew by Nazi definition to immigrate to Israel, even if he is not considered Jewish by the tradition, so in case of some sort of new Holocaust, all these people will be able to find a refugee.

To your claim,
1882-1903 - First Immigration
1903-1914 - Second Immigration
1919-1923 - Third Immigration
Were immigrations of Russian Jews. Total Jews.
In the 50's some of the many countries' immigrants reached Isreal were Russians.
All Jews.
In the 70's there was another Immigration wave frome U.S.S.R. Not only these were Jews, they also sat in jail in Russia for years, in order to come.
In the 90's there was a big immigration wave. again from Russia, contained, you are right, not only Jews. not Jews according to the traditional definition. Because after 70 years of Soviet regime, that tried to vanish all religions, there were many mixed marriages among russian jews. So when a Jewish man, married to a gentile woman, and has gentile children, wish to immigrate, they all come with him, not matter that they are not Jews.
This is your "very dubious Jewish connects".

by Ali H. Mon Oct 18, 2004 14:29

By your own admission the Zionist squatters began to arrive in the 1880s and their population has been driven by an orchestrated campaign of financial inducements, propaganda and a climate of fear. The goal of this campaign has been to disposses Palestinians who have lived in Palestine for thousands of years and until recently in historical terms made up over 90% of the population. This campaign culminated in the 1990s with over 1 million Russians with the most tenuous of Jewish links were resettled in Israel to buttress Israel's falling birthrate.

As for fairness Noel, you seem to have a strange interpretation of the word universal. Universal to my mind means accepted by all, not just by Israel and her close allies. The fact that the deal collapsed was mainly due to the fact that Israel kept the actual details of the deal shrouded in ambiguity until the deal was almost done, leaving the Palestinians no option but to withdraw. Strategic ambiguity is a feature of Zionist politics.

by Noel Mon Oct 18, 2004 14:58

By claiming the 'Zionist thieves' only arrived 'last weekend' and stole the Palestinian land is naive and ignorant.

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine since biblical times.
In 1500 there were an estimated 10,000 Jews in the Safed region alone.

How far back in history need we go to establish who has rights to their homeland?
100 years? 150 years? 200 years? 2000 years?

Are Unionists in Northern Ireland foreign thieves?
Are Americans foreign thieves?
Australians?
How about the Spanish of Andalucia?

Patrick Pearse's father was from Devon.
Was he a foreign thief of Brunswick Street?

by TheTroll Mon Oct 18, 2004 16:46

By 1948, only 6% of the land was Jewish owned, and that included lands owned by Palestinian Jews. ZIonist invadors couldn't buy much land, because the Balfour Delaration made thier offensive plans known to all. ZIonists had Kibbutzes as a beachhead for thier murderous theft of other Palestinian lands. ZIoist would buy what scrublands they could, which wasn't much, and made Kibbutzes. ZIonists would pack Kibbutzes with dozens of ZIonist invador families, and thanks to the Brittish, work public lands like sharecroppers. In 1948, they just stole the lands they had been working, but never owned. And they stole a whole lot more in thier murderous theft.

After 1948, ZIonists would steal lands like in the godfather. they made them an offer they couldn't refuse. And the ZIonist invadors got pieces of paper saying that they owned the stolen lands. Nazis gave Oscar Schindler a piece of paper saying he owned a factory in Poland. The pieces of paper ZIonist invadors of Palestine got saying they owned the stolen lands is about as valid as the piece of paper Schindler, and the thousands of other Nazi opportunists got to feast off the misey of the vanquished.

Jews have lived in the land a long time. AND? Jews lived in Rome a long time. Does that mean ZIonists have a "birthright" of murderous theft of Italian lands? Romans renamed the place. So what? britts named the place trans-Jordan. That didn;t change who the locals were, only what outsiders called the place. There were also Canaanites living in the land called Judea. Jesus boy Simon, not Simon called Peter but Simon the CANAANITE was a Canaanite. And Romans just kicked the judeans out of the land Hebrews murdered or enslaved the locals to rule. They didn;t kick out any of the other peoples living in the land, Canaanites long before even Abraham arrived.

And Zionists offered Palestinians a "generous offer" of 1/6 of the Palestinians lands for a state. Wow. Nazis offered French people over 1/3 of France for a VIchi Frence state. Does that mean Nazis were twice as "generous" with French lands as ZIonist invadors of Palestine are to thier chosen victims??? Hmmmm? I realy would like a responce to that one. Can I have 5/6 of your property? No. What if I were to act like murderous thieving Zionist crusaders and threatened to murder you if you refused me 5/6 of YOUR property? Still no? Well, I can certainly understand why you would not give up 5/6 of YOUR stuff even if someone were to really threaten you.

Are Americans murderous thieves? No, thier anscestors were. General CUster is in hell 130 years now. Murderous thieving 48ers that are still alive are still the murderous thieves they were 52 years ago, just as Nazis hidding out in the Jungles of south America are still the murderous thieves they were 60 years ago. And the ZIonist's children and grand children and great grand children have never stopped stealing Palestinians lands and never hesitated for a second to MURDER the Palesinians who resist, or are just in the wrong place, as defined by the ZIonist crusaders. But thanks for comparing Zionist crusaders with Conquistadories and Custer. It really makes it easy when you admit that ZIonists ARE murderous thieves comparable to murderous thieving Conquistadories and General Custer.

Now, imagine if CHina were to invade the USA and drive all the white people out. Native Americans and Blacks were allowed to stay, and a small number of whites also remained in the cracks. And after time, Chinese rule crumbled and the CHinese were driven out of North America. NOW, would the descendants of white Americans, driven out of the land thier anscestors once murdered the locals to rule, have any "birthright" to return to north America and be murderous thieves of the Native American's and Black's lands??? That is just what ZIonists claim about Palestinian lands. Thier Hebrew anscestors once murdered and enslaved the locals to rule Palestine, so the ZIonists have a "birthright" of murderous theft of Palestinian lands. Oh, but there were still whites living in north America. Whites have a long history being in the land, even after the CHinese kicked most the whites out. How would whites still living in north America give the descendants of the whites, who got kicked out of the land thier anscestors murdered to steal, a "birthright" of murderous theft of the same land from the descendants of the native Americcans and blacks that the white's anscestors once murdered and enslaved to rule, like ZIonits claim about Palestinian lands?

And I bet you thought you were making valid points, when you were really just showcasing your own prejudices.

Lets see, what else were you blabbering about?

by eastern eye Mon Oct 18, 2004 16:48

The declaring of 1882 as the start of 1st immigration is to make a difference between the Jews that lived till then in Isreal/Palestine and the Jews immigrated till than, and the newcomers.
Till 1882 most Jews sat in 4 major cities.
Since than they started astablishing villages, working in agricalture, and building new cities (Tel Aviv was established at 1909).

Even as minority, there is a Jewish sequence in Israel since 1000 B.C at least.

As to your claim - "disposses Palestinians who have lived in Palestine for thousands of years".
The Arabic invasion started at 638 A.D.
So its not yet thousands of years, and they didn't start calling themselves Palestinians till recently.

Something else:
There is no such a thing, "accepted by all".
Just at Soviet Russia. And at some countries neighboring to Israel, at which the President / Prime minister is elected by majority of 99%.

by Noel Mon Oct 18, 2004 17:33

So Americans are not murdering thieves, their ancestors are.
What timescale do you set for homeland ownership?

The majority of Israelis were born after 1948.
Are they Zionist thieves too?

Come clean. Not too fond of the Jews are you?

by TheTroll Mon Oct 18, 2004 19:56

I am not too fond of murderous thieves. I do not hate Nazis because they were Germans. hating Nazis because they are germans would be prejudiced. Hating Nazis because they werre murderous thieves doesn't seem to confuse anyone. Now, ZIonists are 4 generations of murderous thieves who have never stopped stealing Palestinian lands and have never hesitated for a second to MURDER the Palestinians who resist the ZIonist's offenses. To NOT hate murderous thieving ZIonist crusaders JUST because they ALSO happen to be Jews is actually MORE prejudiced than hating Nazis because they are Germans. Your prejudices have been destroyuing our Palestinian neighbor's lves and lifes for decades.

And Palestinians are not Arabs. Palestinians speek Arabic (why aren't the posts here in Irish?) and are mostly Muslims. But few of thier anscestors were Arab invadors. After Muslims kicked the foriegn byzantine masters out of Palestine, they left.ey left a few Arabs to rule the land:teachers/preachers, some soldiers, old and wounded, and many other classes of people required in any occupation, but the vast majority of "Arabs" left palestine. We know this because they then kicked the Byzantine masers out of Lebanon, Syria, etc.

And those "Arabs" were not totaly Arabs. The Muslims recruited fighters from all the lands they kicked Byzantine Masters out of. And it took the Palestinian locals 200 years to adopt Arabic as thier language. Arabs do not have to learn to speek Arabic, unless they are babies (how long did it take Irish folk to take up English?). Does speeking English mean you are not Irish? If the Arabs had replaced the local Canaanites, then I don't think it would have taken 200 years for the people to take up Arabic. As you point out, Jews were also in the land when Muslims kicked the Byzantines out.The Jews also took up Arabic. Did that majicaly change the Palestinian Jews into "Arabs" as Zionist claim it turned the other people in the land into "Arabs?" When muslims took a land, they offered all the slaves in that land, freedom in exchange for converting to Islam. That is how islam spread so quickly and to a majority. Slaves were a big part of byzanntine rule. Arabic is the language of the Koran, so, over 200 years, since they learned Arabic for religious perposes, it was slowly adopted as the primary language of the muslims/ex-slaves. And the Christians and Jews in the middle east, who didn't adopt the Muslim's religion because they were not slaves but slave owners, and had no possative reinfornment driving them to convert (judging by thier large numbers, obviously no negative reinforcement either), such as instant freedom after 1200 years of slavery to Hebrew invadors and another 600 under Roman masters, were surrounded by Arabic speeking Muslims, so they also adoppted Arabic. But speeking Arabic didn't change who the people were, any more than speeking engish makes Irish people English.

And back to that , Jews have lived in palestine, rationalization. Ethnic German people lived in the Sudaten Mountains of Czechoslovakia. And the Nazis used that pathetic rationalization to invade Czechoslovakia. And the Germans also claimed that the Bohemian and Moravian areas were once ruled by Germans of the Holy Roman Empire, so they had a right to invade. Well what do you see, but ZIonists using the same bullshit rationalizations. Wow! It must really SUCK when your most charished beliefs REQUIRE you to share the moral ethics of NAZIS. Hmmm? Does it???

Palestinians only recently started calling themselves palestinians. AND??? Do you have ANY points to go along wih that shit burger? Palestinians could call themselves "buttnuggets" and call thier homeland, "the ass." It would NOT majicaly change who they ARE. What a pathetic rationalization. Can't you do any better?

Hey, it isn't my fault that you have nothing of substance to your rant, and are dependant on lies, rationalization and scapegoating of the victims of ZIonist agressions. It isn't my fault, though I helped, that a few years of truth on the internet has destroyed a hundred years of prejudiced ZIonist lies monopolizing the public debate on the subject/ZIonist crusade. It isn't my fault that YOUR vacant rationalizations are so comparable to rationalizations of rampaging murderous thieving NAZIS. Even when you try to disagree with me, you end up making my point for me.

Thanks. Keep up the shoddy work.

by eastern eye Tue Oct 19, 2004 00:50

try not to use so much the words Nazi murderous thieves, it seem you don't know any other.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but since you are not into history that much, here are some surprises:
the Nazis are not know for what they are for stealing land. murderous thieves are any nation ever conquered a land that its ancestors didn't sit on. any examples?
Egyptians. Babilonians. Persians. Greeks and Romans.
Celts at France, Britain & Irelnad.
German tribes. Goths. Langobards.
Angles & Saxons at Britain.
Vikings (the Russians, for example, are Viking descendants).
Normans.
English at Ireland, North America, India, Australia, mid-east, in fact, most of the world.
Arabs.
Turks.
Japanese.
Chinese.
Russians.
Atsteks.
Inka
Spanish.
and I can go on and on.
all of them, are murderous thieves.
What Nazis did, however, was not just to conquer land and to start a unnecessary world war. They murdered millions of civilians in death camps. Jews, Homosexuals, Gipsies, Communists, Invalids, Russian P.O.Ws and so forth.
This is how Nazis got their bad reputation. not by "murderous theft of land".

Second surprise: till 1947 all land that Jews owned in Israel/Palestine was bought. In money.

Palestinians are Arabs. They reffer themselves as Arabs. The fact that Arabs are separated into different states doesn't make a difference that they are all Arabs.
You relate to the Byzantines as foreiginers, and the Muslims were, what? not foreiginers? Kicking out the Byzantines was a just did, to u?
How do conclude from kicking out Byzantines at Lebanon and Syria that the Arabs didn't stayed?
How all these states became Arabic, if not with the power of the sword? Or to u, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt are not Arabic?

Any opinion can apear on the net. truth and not-truth. Belive what you wish.

by TheTroll Tue Oct 19, 2004 17:36

Sveatoslav-sweed of the slavs, was the first Viking king to make Ukranians, not so much Russians from Muscovi, and Vikings a single people. They were 1 nation after that. Vikings intermarried with locals just as the few "Arabs" who stayed in palestine intermarried with the locals and formed 1 people. And rather than pushing thier slave anscestry, the Palestinian locals adopted arabic as thier heritage. And that is thier busieness, and NOBODY else's business. Not your's, not Zionist crusaders, not the Judeo-christian dominated 1947 UN's. If Palestinians want to call themselves Arabs because a tiny fraction of the people who added to thier bloodline were Arabs, then so what? How does that change a damn thing? They could call themselves Romans after the slave raping Romans added to the local's bloodline. But they would still be the locals. And, since it took 200 years for the locals to adopt Arabic as thier language, it really is STUPID for anyone other than Palestinians to call Palestinians "Arabs", Palestinians can still call themselves Arabs. But like I wrote, what the Palestinians want to call themselves is thier business and doesn't give ZIonists ANY "birthright" of murderous theft of palestinian lands.


I am aware of all you pointed out. I am also aware that nothing you mentioned gives ZIonists thier alleged "birthright" to steal even a single square inch of Palestinian land (in 1948, only 6% of the land was jewish owned, that 6% included the lands owned by the 4.5% palestinian Jewish minority, If ZIonists had baught a tiny amount of land in Ireland, would that gives ZIonists any "birthright" of murderous theft of 54+% of ireland?? No, what a suprise.) or to murder the Palesinians who resist the ZIonist's offenses, which, your comparison to all the murderous thieving invadors of history clearly shows you are aware of the truth. That ZIonists are murderous thieves, even if you hate that phrase. Hey, I guess I was skipping school the day they taught the kids the NICE way to call people "murderous thieves" which your comparison of Zionists to other murderous thieves of history shows quite well that you do not disagree with me on that point. So, your 2 wrongs makes a right mentality is just crap. And all you really did was admit that ZIonists ARE murderous thieves. And all you have left is that the 4 generations of MURDEROUS THIEVING ZIonists are still occupying Palestine, so they should be appeased, so they don't MURDER more Palestinians who resist the ZIonist's offenses. Wow. Am I impressed?

"Neighbors?" Why would you call the foriegn invadors of Palestine the Palestinian's neighbors? Nazis were the Poles neighbors, UNTIL the Nazis invaded Poland. Zionists were neighbors of the Palestinians when they lived in Europe. After the ZIonists invaded, Zionists were no longer the Palestinian's neighbors, but the invadors of Palestinians. Neighbors???? Are you serious? Was Oscar Schindler a neighbor of Poles, or an invador of Poland??? Neighbors? What a joke? If anything can showcase YOUR prejudices any more than calling ZIonist invadors "Neighbors" of the Palestinians, I sure don't know what it could be. But you suprise me with just how pejudiced YOU ARE. maybe you can suprise me with something even more obtuse. Give it a go. Good GOD! Neighbors? I still can;pt believe you are rejudiced enough to call murderous thieving Zionist crusader, "neighbors." DAMN. You really opened my eyes to how just how shut you keep your eyes. I assumed that you were just brainwashed by teachers and preachers. It never occured to me that you LOVE the lie. That you will do anything and say anything to protect the lies. DAMN. Oh well. It is only when one isn't thinking about what they are saying/writing, that you can be sure that they are saying/writing exactly what they are thinking. "NEIGHBORS?" Damn. That just blows my mind. To think that there really are people so prejudiced makes the world seem more lost and damned. Damn, you just ruined my day with YOUR prejudices. Oh well, at least you gave me another in to expose YOUR prejudices. Thanks again.

by TheTroll Tue Oct 19, 2004 18:01

Dork says, "Palestinians should (as if Dork has any business telling palestinians what they should do) in turn begin a dialog between Jews and Muslims in order to understand and tollerate thier cultural and religious differances and try to live in harmony."

What, why did you totaly leave out the ZIonist's bloodsoaked war of conquest that has never stopped stealing Palestinian lands and never hesitated for a second to MURDER the Palestinian's who resist the ZIonist's crimes? maybe you should "understand" that you are pushing "tollerance" of the ZIonist's never ending murderous theft of Palestinian lands, which continues even as you read these words. Tollerance of murderous theft is nothing to take pride in. Appeasment of murdrous thieves, not descendants of murderous thieves, but the actual murderous thieves themselves, is not something I could be proud of. You obviously do.

When it comes to nazi gold in Swiss banks, it is always, "Nobody can be allowed to profit from murder." BUT, because Hebrews once spent 183 years slaughtering and enslaving the locals, ZIonist claim murderous theft of Palestinian lands for the last 60 years as thier birthright. hell, just last year, Jews won a class action lawsuit against life insurance companies for failing to payout life insurance claims of Jews killed in WW2. But YOUR prejudices DEMAND that Palestinians can't evn get justice for the lands ZIonists stole yesterday, or for the Lidice style attacks on palestinians. Stop claiming "righteuosnes" when you obviously know nothing of about it.


Wow, you did come up with something even more prejudiced than calling ZIonist crusaders the Palestinian's neighbors. Did the locals fight against murderous thieving Judeo-christian crusaders because the murderous thieving judeo-christan crusaders were Christians??? Or was it because the murderous thieving Judeo-christian crusaders were murderous thieves, like ZIonism's 4 generations of murderous thieves ARE murderous thieves who have never stopped stealing Palestinian lands and have never hesitated to MURDER the Palestinian victims of the ZIonist's continuing crimes, or Palestinians just in the wrong place as defined by the murderous thieving ZIonist crusaders.

You would have us see Palestinians as ignorant Jew haters (probably transferance). And you compleatly ingnore the fact that in adition to being Jews, ZIonists are also murderous thieves who have never stopped stealling paletinian lands and MURDERING the Palestinians who resist the ZIonist's crimes in a manner comparable to Judeo-christian crusader's crimes against the locals. It is all about someone else's prejudices, isn't it? You make me sick with your prejudiced nazi style scapegaoting of palestinians.

Tolerance of murderous thieves? Get real, for a change.

by Noel Tue Oct 19, 2004 19:31

I'm curious why you single out Oscar Schindler in your rambling, barely legible rants. You appear to be castigating him in some way.

Why the obvious dislike?
Is it because he supported the Nazi Party?

Or, and this is a long shot I admit, that he helped save a large number of Jews from certain death?

by Ali H. Wed Oct 20, 2004 09:50

Whatever about the polemics on both sides white European Zionists colonised Palestine illegally since the 1880s and have ethnically cleansed the territory now known as Israel. White Israeli colonists expect to rule over a collection of pseudo independent bantustans in the same manner ar the Afrikaaners who colonised South Africa in a similar manner from the 1800s. The bantustan strategy did not work for the white Afrikaaner colonisers in South Africa despite complete control over the immense natural resources of South Africa and they have had to share power within their own borders with the native population who outnumber them. Israelis seek to avoid the problem of being outnumbered within their own borders by a two pronged attack of ethnic cleansing, and limiting population growth of their Palestinian minority by any means, including reducing the occupied territories to abject poverty as attested to by numerous reports by human rights organisation. Ultimately this strategy will fail as it has failed for Afrikaaners and Unionists in northern Ireland and Israel will become a state for all rather than a Goyim-rein racist statelet run to the detriment of all by a military/religious elite. Negotiate and share power now or your children will face the consequences.

by Noel Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:04

Ali H,

I have news for you.
Israeli children are facing consequences already.

Also, negotiate? With whom?
Hamas? Al Aqsa?
How about Arafat?
Tried it in 2001 at Taba.
His response......Israeli children are facing the consequences of his response.

Tragically, Palestinian children are being killed too. If the terror stops the IDF response stops. Then negotiations can begin.

by Ali H. Wed Oct 20, 2004 19:25

2 dead Israeli children = 100 dead Palestinians

50:1 ratio

even if you remove militants

2 dead Israeli children = 30 dead Palestinians

15:1 ratio

This smacks of facist reprisal!

Revenge and progress do not mix.

On the subject of the Taba deception:

A collection of land-locked bantustans != a Palestinian state

Time to grow up!

by Nordie Wed Oct 20, 2004 20:27

This what was offered to Arafat by the Israelis:

Essentials of the Camp David II Proposals by Israel
1. Palestinian Statehood and Conditions
A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:

The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
2. Refugees
The Palestine refugee problem would be solved in the following way:

Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement.
Israel would allow the return of around 100,000 refugees under “humanitarian” grounds in the form of family reunions and considers such a step as compliance with UN Resolution 194.
According to one source, the Palestinian State would be limited in the number of refugees it could absorb to half a million refugees according to a fixed timetable. This is not confirmed by other sources and is problematic, since a much larger number of refugees, well over a million, already live in camps in Gaza and the West Bank.
An international fund would compensate refugees. Israel, the U.S. and Europe are to contribute. According to one source, this fund would also provide compensation to Jews who were forced to leave their possessions in Arab countries when they fled to Israel.
3. Jerusalem

Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dees, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre.

Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions.

The proposals allowed for Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian administration of holy sites in the old city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be allowed to hoist the Palestinian flag over the Islamic and Christian shrines along with a safe passage linking northern Jerusalem, which would be annexed to the West Bank, to those areas so that Palestinians and Muslims would not pass through lands under Israeli sovereignty.

4. Land Area of Palestine
The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division between the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.

In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).

The major settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem corridor would be annexed to Israel: Efrat, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumim. The town of Ariel and the corridor along the trans-Samaria highway would be annexed to Israel. The Jewish settlement town of Qiriat Arba would remain under Israeli administration in the heart of Palestinian territory, with a single road through Palestinian territory reaching it from the south. Isolated Jewish settlements including the settlement in Hebron, would come under Palestinian jurisdiction and would probably be abandoned.





People can make their mind up whether this was a genuine offer of a state for peace by the Israelis or just a calculated insult which would fool the softer headed people of the world into believeing that they had offered Arafat a viable state which he turned down becasue he loves to see his people being non-murdereed. If it had of been accepted it probably would have caused civil war among the Palestinians.

by Devil Dog Wed Oct 20, 2004 21:29

1. So the correct option was to launch an intifada, rather than remaining at the negotiating table?

2. As for some of the substance - there isn't going to be a right of return, any Palestinians who actually want to make a deal realise this.

3. So if Arafat accepts - civil war - but how about the flip side of that coin - how far could an Israeli leader who is elected ( a small nicety, something Yasser and the rest of the tyrants who run the Muslim ME don't have to worry about) go in what he offers to Yasser without being turfed out of office and being replaced by, oh, I don't know - some "securocrat", to borrow a gorgeous Shinner phrase?

by avi H. Wed Oct 20, 2004 21:54

it is this: If we Jews give the anti-Semites what they want, they will stop killing us.

I don't recall that working with the Nazis, and certainly hasn't worked with the Palestinian Arabs.

Anti-semitism exists. It is a reality and not just in the Middle East: it's pretty big in Europe too, a continent that committed the greatest crime in history, slaughtering six million Jews WITHIN LIVING MEMORY. Wake up and smell the humus, because after the Jews, the Christians are next on the menu.

by Nordie Wed Oct 20, 2004 23:00

Didn't say he was right to start the Intifada. Just showed the Israeli insult up for all to see.

Are you sure Arafat wasn't elected?

by Devil Dog Wed Oct 20, 2004 23:29

I believe there may have been some sham of an election a few years ago - I believe his term of office set at this election expired some years ago.

Like the Russians under communism, the Palestinians are cursed for the leaders they've been unfortunate enough to get saddled with.

by Nordie Wed Oct 20, 2004 23:38

I agree. I think it's a eternal disgrace that they're ruled over by the non-murderer Ariel Sharon and that he has the power of life and death over them.

by Devil Dog Thu Oct 21, 2004 00:03

Spot on as usual - sure if only Sharon disappeared either Yasser and his non-corrupt, peace-loving cronies cronies or the social workers of Hamas could get on with the task of actually running an administration, things like security, encouraging commerce or even something as mundane as the sewage - oh, wait a minute - much easier to wallow in your victimhood and keep on murdering Jews.

Glad you agreed with me on Soviet communism!

by Nordie Thu Oct 21, 2004 00:17

Why, did you think I was a Stalinist ot something?

by TheTroll Thu Oct 21, 2004 04:27

Were 6 million Jews killed in Europe? I have never seen any evidence of that happening. I have seen hollywood movies pushing the alligations. But I have never seen any actual evidence of it ever happening. And the estimations of Jews allegedly killed in Auschwitz, and estimations is all anyone has ever presented, no actual evidence that I know of, has gone down from 4 million to 1.5 million. That takes the 6 million alligation down to 3.5 million. But even that estimation also isn't supported by any actual evidence. Did you know that the only gas chamber at Auschwitz was built after the war as an "educational" tool. And what kind of tool would you be if you think that a gas chamber built after the war is evidence of 6/3.5 million Jews being murdered.

The Red Cross didn't just do inspections of Nazi POW camps. They went to the concentration camps too. They are not convinced there was any systomatic slaughter of Jews or anyone else. They also say that the starved people you have seen pictures of were starved by allied planes bombing railroads and supplies and preventing food from getting to the camps in any adiquate supply. Many people in the camps died atfer the camps were liberated. those pictures you have seen of piles of hundreds (not millions, as you are expected to believe) of dead were the people who died while in allied custody. For some reason, many people see pictures of hundreds of people who died after liberation, and for some reason, think Nazis murdered millions.

I hope that you don't expect me to bare false witness against Nazis just because you think that would give ZIonists thier alleged "birhright" of murderous theft of Palestinian lands. Nazis were murderous thieves of Eorpean lands. The Nazi's ZIonist like actions (murderous theft of thier neighbor's homeland) are enough to make nazis the bad guys of that conflict.
You would think that at some time in the last 60 years, someone would actually come up with some actual evidence.

But even if some day, someone actually provides more than just vacant alligations, it still wouldn't give Zionists any "birthright" of murderous theft of even 1 sqare inch of Palestinian lands OR to MURDER the palestinians who resist the ZIonist's offenses.

And don't call me a holocaust denyer. What I deny is ever seeing any evidence of the holocaust. Don't curse my alleged darkness unless you are willing to light for me your alleged candle. Just show me something, anything, that hasn't already been discreadited.

Post script: Jerusalem is not a Jewish city. Didn't know that, did you?

by Noel Thu Oct 21, 2004 09:04

What a charming assortment of Jew haters we have on display today.

We have Ali H.
Negotiations for peace are paramount.
Once that creates Judenrein.

Nordie.
Refers to Jews as 'Pig people'. Nice.

And my personal favourite, Troll.
Denies the Holocaust.
Then denies denying the Holocaust.
Priceless.

Oh and by the way, Jerusalem is a Jewish city.
You really didn't know that, did you?

by Ali H. Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:32

The fact is that preceeding the establishment of the state of Israel Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in relative peace in Palestine. This is no longer true because of the Zionist lunatic fringe and their government backers who are prepared to go to ANY lengths in pursuit of lebensraum. This extends to killing the Israeli prime-minister, so what would these people care about butchering and mistreating Palestinians.

The Taba deal revealed that the Zionists were never prepared to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and hence were going to block the establishment of an Independent Palestinian state. The alternative of apartheid "tribal homelands" was a calculated insult to the Palestinians as was Sharons visit to the Temple Mount and the Zionists with their extensive spy network new this. The intifada was inevitable from that point on.

The real issue is not about the Palestinians, it's about the Israelis and whether they are prepared to pay the territorial price and economic for peace, in spite of the bleatings of the Zionist lunatic fringe. This means reparations to the 500,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed from Palestine in 1948 in lieu of the right to return, and withdrawl of ALL Israelis to within the green line. The precedent for this is the compensation (rightly) and Palestinian land (wrongly) given to European Jews by the British in 1948 by way of compensation for the holocaust of 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their allies. Fair is fair!

These are the reasonable demands of the Palestinian people and those who support them and it is why Zionists call them, their supporters, the UN and EU and most of the worlds population names.

PS IMC should remove the Trolls posts from this forum as they are a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real issues.

by Shay Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:12

Could I remind Ali H of Hebron massacre of 1929
jews massacred, brutalised raped
- just one example of pre 1948 attacks against Jews

Has Ali H heard of Haj-Ameen Al-Husseni the grand mufti of Jerusalem and notorious friend of Adolf Hitler

It seems his history books have been a little distorted

As for the Trolls holocaust denials - I am forwarding this string to the NCCRI as well as the Gardai

by Nordie Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:21

'Nordie.
Refers to Jews as 'Pig people'. Nice.'

Can this disgusting twisted lie be taken off please, seeing as the editors take a lot fucking less offensive stuff off? This right-wing and cowardly little scumbag has gone a bit far in his lies this time.

I do refer to pig-people as pig-people. I don't refer to a race as pig-people. Zionists and their murderous supporters obviously have the minds of pigs and so therefore are pig-people. There are plenty of white, black and arab pig-people too if that helps.

To be anti-Nazi does not make one anti--white.

by Ali H. Thu Oct 21, 2004 13:03

The Jewish masacre of Muslims in Hebron in 1994 when Baruch Goldstein, a US-born physician, shot and killed at 48 Palestinians while they were praying in the Hebron mosque, and attracted praise from Zionist extremists such as the Kach movement.

And in terms of distortion let's not forget that the Sephardi Jewish community in Hebron had lived quietly with its Arab neighbors for centuries until in 1925, a Zionist Yeshiva was opened. The Yeshiva students lived separately from the local Jewish Sephardi community, and from the Arab population. Due to this isolation, the Arabs viewed them with suspicion and hatred, and identified them as Zionist immigrants.

This and the climate of tension fuelled by outside agitation on both sides led to the massacre which occurred when the British were still responsible for Palestine. One wonders why the British allowed the situation to get out of control to this extent but they were probably too busy combatting Zionist terrorists such as Irgun (eventually to become the Stern gang) set on trying to drive out both Muslims and British so they could establish a Zionist state on ethnically cleansed land.

by Lpfh Thu Oct 21, 2004 13:48

While I don’t equate all criticism of Israeli policy with ‘anti-Semitism’ the comment like ‘pig people’ presumable meaning men, women and children alike are as racist as any one could encounter.

The fact that this 'nordie' tries to disarm it by his attempt to difference between his and another specific type of racial hatred hardly make sit less disgusting and patently influenced by an ethnic/racist hatred .
Hartred , not just jew-hate, comes in many forms but is equally as vile regardless.

by Ali H. Thu Oct 21, 2004 15:12

Hopefully your condemnation also extends to those Israelis who make racist and disparaging remarks against Palestinians and Muslims such as:

Ehud Barak who likened them to crocodiles

Menahim Begin who called them two legged beasts

Raphael Eitan who called them cockroaches

We await your condemnation of this Israeli racism from the highest levels of Israeli society with baited breath?

by Nordie Thu Oct 21, 2004 15:24

What a brilliant piece of buffoonery. Pig people is about personalities, nowt to do with racial hatred me lad, nowt. If a man behaves like a pig then he is a pig-person. Same for a woman. Zionists are very nazi-like so not to call them pig-people simply because they are Jews and that might cause the simple minded drama queens of the world to faint would be racial as it wouldn't be giving all the races an equal chance to become pig-people.

Wouldn't say any kids are but some of those wee scitters round my estate, I don't know...Now run along, son.

by GHI Thu Oct 21, 2004 16:10

Some ,when reading your post ,might also think "pig ignorant".

by Frank Adam Thu Oct 21, 2004 16:51 FrrankADAM at AOL dot com 14,Hartley Ave, PRESTWICH, M25 0AT, UK

Dear Sir,
Abba Eban warned that "The Arabs can have peace, or the Arabs can have war; but they [Arabs]can not be at peace and we [Israel] at war."
AS someone who grew up between London bomb sites I do not have much sympathy tothis day for German complaints about the Allied bomber offensive.
The Arabs - all of them-could have had peace with the Green Line before 1967. Even after the 67 warIsrael offerd to go back to the Green Line in return for a peace treaty but the Arabs did not even trouble to reply !!!

Similarly the Arabs chose this war of busbombs and shooting at civilians and too many political cowards have never reproached them. The Arabs have sown the storm they deserve their whirlwind in a teacup international sideshow.
Yours faithfully, FDA

by TheTroll Thu Oct 21, 2004 17:08

Outside of Zionist occupied Palestine, there is no Israel, green line or no green line. Were the French people offensive when they liberated ALL of france, with allied aid, instead of just Vichi France, like your prejudiced claims about "Arabs" (even though Palestinians are not Arabs) in PALESTINE choosing war. If Palestinians chose liberation of ALL of Palestine from murderous theving ZIonist invadors, then thier choice would be no more offensive than French people liberating AL of france from murderous thieving Nazi invadors. Foriegn occupation is not peace, and has nothing to do with peace. You are pushing appeasment of Zionist offenses as being the equivalent to peace, which it isn't if you are the victim of the Zionist's continuing never ending offenses.

You are one of those wolves in sheep's clothing we read about in the Bible, aren't you??? Well, I didn't fall for your obtuse and offensive rationalizations.

by Nordie Thu Oct 21, 2004 17:16

I know, GDL. I must apologise to all supporters of occupation, murder, theft, racial supremacy and religious bigotry for referring to them as pig-people. I realise now that to compere ignorant greedy racists with ignorant greedy pigs is bigoted, somehow , someway. Oh I know, it’s because pigs are too intelligent to discriminate in any sort of way whatsoever and so can't be racist, so I do concede that the comparison is wrong and I promise to cease it forthwidth.

by TheTroll Thu Oct 21, 2004 17:29

I did not deny the holocaust. i never have. I denied ever seeing any evidence of the holocaust. Since the ZIonists are milking the vacant alligations into a "birthright" of murderous theft of palestinian lands, I think hey should be the ones who proove thier own claims, which get many in the west on the ZIonist's side in the ZIonist's bloodsoaked war of conquet against palestinians. "Oh, other allegedly Christian people were allegedly evil to jews, so helping the Zionist's in thier bloodsoaked theft of palestinian lands will be good for my soul, even though doing so I am treating the Palestinians as I would not have them treat me. " Very anti-Christ-ian view there. baring false witness against nazis so ZIonists can milk the alligations into a birthright of murderous theft of Palestinian lands is not something I am going to be doing. Baring false witness goes against the 6 commandments.

And Jerusalem is NOT a Jewish city, even if the ignorant people claim it is. When the Romans kicked the Jews out of the land that Hebrew invadors slaughtered and enslaved the locals to rule, the Romans compleatly destroyed the Jerusalem that Jews had thier slaves build. 40 years later, Romans had thier new slaves/(formerly the Jew's slaves) rebuild a city where hebrew invadors forced thier slaves/(vanquished locals) to build Jerusalem, which was no longer there. Anybody know what the Romans named "thier" city??? No. Didn't think so.
Hundreds of years later, in a fit of religious nostalgia, the "Roman" city (even though most of the inhabitants were local slaves) was renamed Jerusalem. And who renamed the city Jerusalem??? Was it Christian Byzantines, or Arab Muslims??? Any guesses??? You would have a 50% chance of being right, even if you are 100% ignorant.

Oh, and that wall you see video of ZIonists banging thier heads agaist. Was it built by Jews??? Is that more bait??? take a bite and see.

by Ali H. Thu Oct 21, 2004 17:52

Let's not forget that Menachim Begin admitted in 1982 that Israel had chosen to start the 3 wars with her Arab neighbours.

This is however now in the past Israels right to exist has been almost universally acknowledged and Israel's enemies, most importantly Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties in place. Sadat paid for one of them with his life so the leaders of Arab countries do not take such decisions lightly. Those who have not signed agreements have de-facto peace with Israel so there is no national-security reason for Israel to insist on continued occupation of areas outside the green line.

The fact is that Israel and its vocal Zionist leadership wishes to keep these territories and pay no price for them despite absolute military superiority and peace. Lacking an enemy without the Zionists regulary stoke the fire of Muslim fundamentalism to ensure they continue to have an enemy within, dangerous enough to be credible but easy enough to be contained. They needed an enemy enough for them to get Mossad to invent Hamas thus destabilising the PLO leadership (divide and conquer), similar in many ways to the way in which the US invented al quaeda.

Let's face it Israel needs Hamas and a climate of terror in order to hang onto the occupied territories, the same way as the US needs al quaeda to hang onto Iraq and introduce repressive leglislation at home.

by Terra nostra Thu Oct 21, 2004 18:21

is somebody paying you to churn out what might best be described as highly subjective material --if not out and out arabist propaganda?
so, tell us ali what's you're future plans for palestine then?

by TheTroll Thu Oct 21, 2004 22:41

Who is Ali, or anyone other than Palestinians (Judeo-christian dominated 1947 UN, Judeo-christian boy's club Leage of Nations, Britts, murderous thieving ZIONIST invadors), to be deciding the future of Palestinians??? Do you really think that Ali, if he isn't a Palestinian, has any business denying the Palestinians the right fo self determination; as so many of you think that you do when you support the ZIonist's bloodsoaked crusade?

by TheTroll Thu Oct 21, 2004 23:21

The Hebron massacre of 29 was before the ZIonist crusade, was it? The 1948 climax, maybe.

No, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 destoryed any chance of Zionists to hide thier offensive plans to take over Palestinian lands under the Brittish guns in the same manner Hungarians invaded Slovakia unde the Nazi's guns. And the Zionists seeking weapons from any source they could shows that they were aware that thier offensive invasion would see resistance in some form of violence. And the ZIonists kept invading Palestinian lands under the brittsh guns knowing damned well that the locals didn't want Zionist invadors stealing palesinian lands and murdering the Palestinian who resisted, or were just in the wrong place, as defined by ZIonist invadors. Was Slovakian resistance against hungarians offensive? ZIonism might have climaxed in 1948, but the ZIonist invasion began long before. And pre-1948 resistance of palstinians fighting against the foriegn invadors was no more offensive than Slovakians fighting against Hungarian invadors.

A tiny fraction of the Palestinian population (what, like 1/1000 of a percent) massacres Zionist invadors in Hebron and Zionists try to turn that into an indictment of ALL Palestinians, and make the Zionists who invaded Palestinian lands while the Brittish guns kept the palestinians down as defending themselves, even though ZIonists were no more defending themselves than hungarian invadors of SLovakia were defending themselves from Slovakian freedom fighters.

And a Palestinian has his picture taken with Hitler, the leader of a MAJOR economic industrial power, so that is supposed to give ZIonists thier alleged "birthright" of murderous theft of palestinian lands. i recall a story of how Soviets pulled the same kind of sham. American diplomats would go to state banquets or some sort of state function where they would meet and shake hands with soviet officials. Snap! A picture gets taken. And if the official gets to big or pisses off the wrong Soviet leaders, the picture would be shown, "Look! With your own eyes, look how this guy was shaking hands with an American. He must be BAD!"

But think about it. Would Palestinians be lickly to have thier pictures taken with CHurchill or Chamberalnd? Arabs helped England kick the crap out of the Turks, and the Britts repay the them by supporting the Zionist take over of palestine by providing Zionist invadors with access to the beachhead kibbutzes. A beachhead at nomandy already in France would have saved thousands of allied forces. And ZIonist invadors got thier beachhead from the britts. Then more Zionists invaded. I swear, it is like that Nazi video they showed us in scholl. You know the one. the one where there are rats runing around and a german voice saying stuff like, "Jews are parasites. They will move into your homeland, breed like rats and when thier numbers are great enough, destroy thier chosen hoast." Kind of ironic that this is just what Zionist Jews did in Palestine. It is no wonder that Mein Kampf is such a hot seller in Muslim lands when Nazis had such an accute, even prophetic take on, at the very least, ZIonist Jews.

And after allies liberated the netherlands, one of the first nations invaded and last liberated, the US Army saw how nazis had ransacked the place stealing food medacines, transportation, etc and created the environment for chaos. The US army gave Holland 3 dozen 2 1/2 ton trucks (oh, where is he from?) to take food and medacines to the Dutch. Hold on there, ZIonists ( a tiny fraction anyway) STOLE the trucks and used them to transport thier invasion forces to the mediteranian sea where the ZIonist invasion forces borded ready ships to take them to Palestine and the Kibbutz/beachheads established by earlier waves of ZIonist who invaded under the brittish guns like hungarians invaded Slovakian lands under the nazi's guns.

This bit of history doesn't just show the Zionists were backstabbing thieves who stole the food and medacines from inocent starving sick Dutch kids (ZIonists stole a few extra acres of land in the un-Jewish city of jerusalem to build a park honoring the Europeans, including Dutch people who risked and lost thier lives to keep Jews out of concentration camps, some public relations stunt, doncha think? ZIonists steal more palstinian lands to buy foreign appeasment), it also shows an organized choreographed invasion effort on the part of Zionists in thier murderous theft of palestinian lands.

by eastern eye Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:33

You are a Jews hater (i wouldn't use the term antySemetist, cause you'd claim "i don't have a thing against Arabs. they are Semic as well).
You are an Holocause denier,
and anyway, you are racist.
You write with such hate, I have some pitty for you (as I should have, for someone who calles himself "the troll").
How many Jews to you know personally? How many Israelis (apart from the Arab and Neo-Nazi propaganda you keep puking)?
If you are an Irish, Ireland has 0.1% Jews. how do you come to hate people you don't know?

say, wasn't it you who put here some article a few monthes ago, about the Thalmud and how the Jews are to be blamed for the hatred that people have to them? the article that was deleted several hours later for being too much racist?

by Ali H. Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:04

The big question is not plans for Palestine. The issue is when a Palestinian state will be established and how independent it will be. Its' independence will rely on the absence of settlers as otherwise there will be a continued requirement for the IDF to protect them leading to friction which will periodically spill over into violence on both sides.

As for propaganda your nickname would suggest that your agenda is to hold onto what you have in the occupied territories. This while understandable coming from a Zionist is not compatible with a fair peace and will not lead to long term security for Israel. To suggest otherwise and to not tell the story from both sides is propaganda.

Only when the full story is told on both sides will the causes of the conflict be understood and a negotiated peace be possible. As long as Zionists pretend to be the only victims in this conflict no solution is possible and this certainly suits a minority of extreme Zionists who frequent this site. These people seem to believe there is a future in trying to hold onto the settlements by any means, fair or foul, and in lying to cover their real motivation (ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories and continued expansion beyond the green-line).

by TheTroll Fri Oct 22, 2004 17:24

I do not hate Jews, I hate murderous thieves. Zionist apologists do not hate murderous thieving ZIonist crusaders souly because they also happen to be Jews. As I pointed out above, that is more prejudiced than hating Nazis because they are germans.

I do not hate my Jewish brother in law. He hates what I have to say about the murderous thieving ZIonist crusaders. But he has come to terms that I do not accept beautiful lies over the ugly truth. He has ever oportunity to attack the message, but he is family, so he doesn't attack the messanger and think that attacks the message, as you do. I am just one of those people who can't be lied to. And I have a talent for witnessing against the sins of others in a way that burns into thier souls and keeps burning.

I am a racist??? And what race am I? Actually, I am only mostly white. I also have Creek and Iroqouis blood. While I hate my white anscestors for being murderous thieves of my Native American ancestor's homeland, it is only because they deserve my hatred and deserve to be witnessed against for thier crimes. But that is history, and they are burning in hell. Screw them, they were murderous thieves just as Zionists ARE 4 generations of murderous thieves who have never stopped stealing palestinian lands and have never hesitated to murder the Palestinians who resist.

And you think, oops, I mean you FEEL that the Zionist's should not be hated for thier continuing crimes and that people are WRONG, HATEFULL, ANTY-SEMETIC, if they witness against the murderous thefts comited by 4 genertions of murderous thieving ZIonists. Fine, be shallow, be an apologist for murderous thieves, scapegoat me for witnessing against the bloodsoaked crime of ZIonism. Attacking the messanger rather than the message just showcases YOUR prejudices and YOUR inability to add ANYTHING of actual substance. Fine, keep up the shoddy work.

Some times apologists of the ZIonist crusaders will place false flag post and write my nickname in an attempt to get my post bared from IMC web sites. There is not much I can do about that. I could change my name every time I post something. But I think good cover bands rock as much as the real deal. Bad cover bands don't rock worth a shit. If you accept or reject what I wrote because of who I am, then again, YOUR prejudices. So I don't worry about my name and just make the words say as much to your souls as posible. And as i said above, I must have been skipping school when they taught the kids a nice way to call murderous thieves "murderous thieves." Tell me a nice way to refer to murderous thieves as murderous thieves, and I will use it, at least once, in honor of YOU for coming up with a nice way to call murderous thieves, "murderous thieves." But i bet you can't come up with a nice way to call murderous thieves "murderous thieves" so I guess the murderous thieving Zionist crusaders will just have to keep getting upset at the unflattering monicer that they chose for themselves when they chose to be conspirators in ZIonism/murderous theft. Zionists know where the exits are located. they can dump the ZIonist's bloodosaked crusade and get out of Palestine and never torment the Palestinians again. Peace would be that simple.

by TheTroll Fri Oct 22, 2004 21:01

Oh yes, now I remember. You must mean when I pointed out how the old testiment has multiple Jehovahs. And how, with the prophets, Jehovah Sabaoth trashes everything Moses' choice of Jehovahs put into the Bible. And how Moses is a self admitted devil worshiper-Exodus 19:5. And how Jesus agreed with everything the prophets had to say and never said his Jehovah was Moses' choice of Jehovahs. And we all know that the devil HAS lied to mankind and wants us to follow him as our GOD, not our trash collector, our GOD. According to the prophets, the devil has been quite succesfull in his plan.

Holy shit, do you mean that stuff got booted out? Well, if it was booted, it wasn't because it was racist. How is pointing out the old testiment has multiple Jehovahs make one racist??? How does pointing out how Jehovah Sabaoth trashing Moses' choice of Jehovahs racist??? How is pointing out Moses being a self admitted devil worshiper make one racist??? I can certainly understand how people who follow Moses' choice of the old testiment's multiple Jehovahs do not like heariung about what Jehovah Sabaoth had to tell them. But that doesn't make me a racist for pointing out what the bible actualy says, does it??? Well, HOW??? How would that make someone a racist??? It was your vacant suposition. Can't you expand on your own opinion??? Or are you too pathetic?

by eastern eye Thu Jan 13, 2005 17:17

according to Jewdaism, god has many names, something like 180 at least.
One of them is Jehovah Sabaoth.
The first one to use that title was Hana at her paryer for a child. CHAZAL (main letters for "our wisemen that died") say she meant by that something like "from all the armies of creatures you've created (TSVAOT=armies) couldn't you give me one child?".
She lived about 200-300 years after Moses.
Another name is SHALOM.

About your Exodus 19:5 - what's written there is "Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine".
Yap. Where the devil you see a devil?

and NO.
I didn't mean that stuff.

by TheTroll Thu Jan 13, 2005 18:19

You seem to leave out how Jehovah Sabaoth contradicts pretty much every thing Moses said his choice of god's said, according to the books.

Who rules this world until a savior acceptable to you is found??? Who gave Brittian the power to brutalize Ireland? And who gives Bush the power to kill 100000 Iraqis and support many brutal leaders in most of the world? Who gave Hebrews the power to slaughter or enslave Amorites, Parazites, Hivites, Jebuzites, even Hittites, and force the survivors to build the hebrews temples and cities? Who gave Romans the power to bring desolation apon Judea? And who gave ZIonists the power to make an abomination of desolation by invading Palestine??? Not Jehovah Sabaoth, for sure, who warns them many times of damnation should they return as murderous thievesjust as the Adam and Eve were warned not to return to Eden, or death would find them. But if you think he ever did, shows us where.

Jehovah Sabaoth is the God of the prophets. Jesus said that his God was the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob (did they follow Moses' choice of gods? Just because Moses said that he followed the God of Abraham etc, doesn't mean he was telling the truth.) , and the God of the prophets. I am a Christian, so I follow Jehovah Sabaoth, and no others.
And Hanah being the first to use that name doesn't make Jehovah Sabaoth God of thwe prophets and God of Abraham, etc. But as a Christian, Jesus saying that his God was the God of the prohpets AND the God of Abraham, etc, makes it so to me. Is there ANY reason that you would assume that Moses's choice of god is the real God??? I mean, since Jehovah Sabaoth trashed pretty much everything he said???

The basic story pretty much everyone knows. Man with God, man lied to by one who wants to be your god, God sends a savior to lead them back. The liar doesn't want to be your neighborhood baker or street cleaner, he wants to be your GOD. And he presents himself as YOUR GOD, doesn't he. He might want to be your neighborhood BUTCHER, if you play with the definition. But is clear in the word is that the God of the prophets and abraham, etc, does challenge pretty much everything Moses's god had to say. And that sure as hell isn't my fault, just because I follow the prophet's God and Jesus' teachings.

And if you reject the word, fine with me. As a Chrsitian, I believe that this world was created to test man. I shake the dust of your home from my sandles, and start writing for the next potential saved soul. Let the thorns that the enemy cast into the grains grow mature, AND YOU CAN SEE THEM to cut down and cast into the fire. Yep, Zionism is letting pretty much the whole world show thier true colours. It isn't just the ZIonist's jets that leave a marked trail accross the heavens.

by eastern eye Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:40

I didn't know you are a bible-belt religeus prick.
The whole Jehovah Sabaoth + Hana and stuff was to explain you there is no importance to the name. You can call God "Alla" or "Jehovah Sabaoth " or The Lord" - it doesn't make any diference, nor all the names that God has in the bible.

Since the term "Jehovah Sabaoth" doesn't appear at all in the New Testament, how did you came to the conclusion that Jesus's God is Jehovah Sabaoth?

A savior acceptable to us hasn't found yet, cause the Messiach should do other things than to die on a cross, just because Christians think God can't fogive all human race for what you call "the ancient sin" without a sacrifice of a Man.
The Messiach should make, among other things, endless peace between all nations. Jesus didn't do that. Or in other words - if its so good, why its still bad?

"Just because Moses said that he followed the God of Abraham etc, doesn't mean he was telling the truth".
And who said Jesus told the truth? You believ to Jesus, which was one man that claimed what he claimed, yet you doubt Moses that in his case, All Israelittes had seen what God did on mount Sinay.

If you wish, look at Luke 16: 19-31, Luke 24:27, 44, and see that according to the new testament, Jesus recognized at Moses.


"who gives Bush the power to kill 100000 Iraqis and support many brutal leaders in most of the world?"
The American voters, it seems.

"Who gave Romans the power to bring desolation apon Judea? And who gave ZIonists the power to make an abomination of desolation by invading Palestine???"
Its nice to see that you do know there was Judea from which Jews came, much before this region was called, by the Romans, "Palestine", in order to punish the Jews, no matter that there were no longer Philistinies long before.
Who gave the Americans the power to enslave and cheat and and drug and kill with deseases the Native Americans? What Your ancestors did was an actual Genoside of many nations. How can you live with yourself?
It is far worse than what my grandparents (litteraly) did to the Palestinians. Had the Palestinians agreed to share, as the UN decided, we might have lived happily ever after. They didn't. They started a war. they lost.
the Native Americans agreed. they were cheated and murdered. All happened to the Palestinians was to leave their places to a place far 50-100-200 kms away, which is a tragedy, but not ot compare with what happened to other nations. If Jordan and Egypt wouldn't conquer them - they'd have their state a long time ago.
To call Zionist "marderous theives who never stopped stealing Palestine" as you like to write - look at yourself first. I could call your people "marderous theives who never stopped stealing America". Somehow, I don't.

"Not Jehovah Sabaoth, for sure, who warns them many times of damnation should they return as murderous thievesjust as the Adam and Eve were warned not to return to Eden, or death would find them. But if you think he ever did, shows us where"
No. lets do it opposite: you show me where its written that God FORBADE from Jews to came back to Israel.

by TheTroll Sat Jan 15, 2005 00:35

It must be getting close.

A name??? And you keep ignoring how the different manifestations of the named versions of deity disagree. Is that a psychological stumbling block of your's. I noticed how hung up on lables you are before now, and also in this last posting. But I will get into that in a bit. I am not hung up on names as you are, but what the message is. And the messages are different from Moses's god to Jesus', the prophets, and according to Jesus, Abraham. Isaac and Jacob's God. And that remains a constant while you babble about names being so important.

Jesus is quoted as saying that his God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob , and the God of the prophets. The God of the prophets is named and has a different message than Moses' choice of god's. If God is the same, yesterday today and forever, as I believe, then clearly, they can not be the same if they have opposing messages.

Your choice of messi...whatever, is your choice. But Jesus did NOT die for all mankinds sins or the original sin. He said that on judgement day, many shall come to him claiming that they were with him all along, Jesus said he is to respond saying "I have never known you" and kicks them back to judgement. Jesus also said that He did NOT come to accuse you, but one will someday come to accuse YOU and MOSES, in whom you trust (sound like anything you have heard recently???), after Jesus returns for his flock. And people who treat Palestinians not as they would have palestinians treating them, are not with Jesus' teachings, so they can't be with Jesus either. This world was created to test mankind, not to provide paradise and Jesus didn't come to bring peace between anyone. Jesus, like the prophets brought warnings. Prophets didn't show up when people were NOT being evil, but when they ARE being evil.

I believe Jesus spoke the truth for my own reasons. If you want to buy Moses' line, then that is your busines. I just pointed out how the God of the prophets challenged the word of Moses' god, AND I witnessed to the fact that ZIonists are 4 generations of murderous thieves. Now, if you chose to teach you kids that god gave them a "birthright" of murderous theft of a particular piece of land, even though 1 of the choices of Gods your writing have to choose from challenges the claims made by the other choice of Gods, then that is your business. BUT, if your kids should bring thier programed beliefs into the real world, and choose to actually be murderous thieves of that particular piece of land, then you would have to be pretty thick not to expect people pointing out how your beliefs do NOT give you, or your kids ANY such "birthright' of murderous theft, or that your beliefs are challenged by Jehovah Sabaoth.

Luke, 16, :29, "They have Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them." Never had it been said that Moses and the prophets both represented the same God, did it? Nope, it just says they have 2 choices, which STILL contradict each other. 1 thing Jews, Christians and Muslims have that the others have, is Moses, and the prophets. And nowhere in Judeism and Christianity (not sure about Islam), does it actually say that they are representing the same God. this world was created to test mankind. It would hardly have been a test if God were to let the prophets or Jesus come right out and give you the answers. it isn't a test for memory. You are here to be either hot or cold, but not luke warm.
Luke 24L:25 , Slow to believe all the prophets had to tell them, 27, then, Starting with Moses, and going through the prophets, Jesus explained to them the passages throughout the sciptures that were about Jesus. Moses talked of Jesus, AND??? Doesn't say that Moses' choice of gods was Jesus' God, just that Moses talked of him. Moses' choice of god still is challenged by the Prophet's God. That isn't going to change any time soon, is it?

But Luke can go in the trash. mark too, and paul, and others, seeing as how John said that only those who were there to witness Jesus' teachings can provide the word, not that they do, but that they can. WHile mark and Luke talked to witnesses and assembled similar stories into a single tail. John shut down ALL of the new testiment but what he and Mathew had to say. Luke also said that jesus said there were 7 commandments, 6 of Moses' and the 1 Moses left out and Jesus called God's greatest comandment, while Mathew quoted jesus saying there are only 6 comandments, 5 provided by Moses and the 1 Moses left out, which jesus said was God's greatest comandment.

And american voters get thier power from whom?

Of corse I know of Judea. But it isn't a Jewish homeland just because hebrews invaded and lived thier a while. And here is where you get stumped by names and labels. What Romans named the place didn't change who the people still in the land where, only what others called the local peoples, which did include canaanite tribes and Samaritans. Only Judeans were kicked out of the land Hebrew inadors were murderous thieves of.
Britts called it transJordan. Does that mean Palestinians are Trabs-Jordanians, just because a foriegn occupation force says so??? Get real for a change. Your suposition that Hebrews once being murderous thieves of the land makes it kosher for ZIonists to ALSO be murderous thieves of the land, even though Jehovah Sabaoth warned them that the idea is dung and would result in thier compleat destruction, is getting pretty old.

My anscestors were murderous thieves, and thier crimes were WORSE than your grandfather's crimes (AND YOUR"S, ZIonists have never stopped steal Palestinian lands nore hesittated to MURDER the Palestinians who resist YOUR offenses). First of all, you just admitted that ZIonists are murderous thieves in comparing them to my white Christian anscestors and thier Jewish American allies. Only the degree of the murderous theft gets mention by you. So tell us, how many Palestinians have to be murdered by offending ZIonist invadors and how much Palestinian lands must be stolen before ZIonists are murderous thieves?

Second off, I am part Creek and part Iroquoisas well as being mostly white. I am hardly comparable to Conquestadories and General Custer, even though you just admitted that Your grandfather AND YOU are. Biblicaly speeking, I was "born into peace" (which Democraps and Republitrash have sold out for the Zionist enabler's votes and campain contributions), as Judeans were, before Romans had arrived and God took away any protection he once placed over the Judeans. The sins of the fathers shall be visited apon the children for 3 and 4 generations. Genereal Custer is in hellfire 130 years now. You compare Zionists to people long since dead and suggest that thier offenses should mea something to me. Well, My Creek anscestors were invadors of Seminol lands before and durring my white anscestor's invasion 0f north America. Should I feel sorry or ashamed about the Creek's offenses too??? Do you feel bad about Hebrews being murderous thieves of the canaanite's homeland???? Since you don't show ANY remorse about your own complicency to the Zionist's continuing murderous theft of Palestinians lands, I seriously can;t imagine you being ashamed about hebrews once being murderous thieves in the land you now practice the same offenses.

Oh, if the Paslestinians had appeased the Zionist invadors theft of 54% of the Palestinian's homeland, as the Judeo-christian dominated 1947 UN appeased the Zionist's invasion of 54% of the Palestinian's homeland, "WE" (Zionists and thier victims) could live happily ever after. Oh, so it is the Palestinian's fault. Well, you sure like scapegoating the Palestinian victims of the Zionist offenses which you admitted by comparing them to Conquestidories and General Custer. Oh, if the Frech had accepted Vichi France, the French and Nazis could live happlily ever after. See, it seems too stupid when I make that comparison, doesn't it??? COme on, it is your supposition that Palestinians rejecting and fighting against the Zionist's offenses, which you admitted to. Can't you back up your own suppositions??? Or are you jst parroting out the ZIonist line for the brainwashed masses approval??? Either way, it is pretty pathetic, as it always is when ZIonists and thier enablers use the scapegoating claims. Oh, it is the Jordanians fault. It is the Palestinian's fault. it is the Zionist appeasing 1947 UN's fault. Pathetic, offensive, and inane at the same time, you are.

SOmehow, you don't. That is because they stopped stealing American lands a long time ago, and I have been "born into peace" as Judeans were born into peace in "Judea", while ZIonists are still 4 generations of murderous thieves. With ZIonists, it isn't just the sins of the fathers, but the continuing sins of the sons, and grand sons and now, of the great grandsons. this generation (the 48ers) shall not pass before thier judgement day comes. 48ers are still alive. And still awaiting thier judgement, as are thier murderous thieving sons grandsons and greatgrandsons, none of whom are comparable to me, a part white part native person, who's father's sins that I have to worry about (if I hadn't already repented and started witnessing against, as the real Christians were told, by Jesus, to do, or get kicked back down to judgement) concern the crimes of brutal dictators that the 4 geberations of my elders set up around the world AND THIER BLOODSOAKED SUPPORT OF THE ZIONIST"S BLOODSOAKED CRUSADE, which you admitted above, by comparing them with the white invadors (Christians and Jews, You said, "I could call your people marderous theives who have never stopped stealing America" even though they did stop, more than 4 generations back, and include the Creek and Iroquois victims of my white anscestors) of the Americas. But somereason, you don't. maybe because you can't. while ZIonists are still 4 generations of murderous thieves, as you admitted to above, by comparing them to, you know who. Well, thier is a class of American people living today that you could compare ZIonists too. That group being American JEWS who jouined the ZIONIST"S bloodsoaked crusade. Other than that, I don';t know of ANY living Americans who fit your own claims, which you continue to fail to add substance to.

Me show you where??? It is the ZIonists who have chosen murderous theft as thier life's work, and thier enablers who have joined the offeses by financing them, just as many prophets and the new Testiment described. I want this world to do it's job of testing mankind and the evil peoples to show thier true colours and burn in hell fire. Hot or cold, NO luke warm. If you have eyes that do not see and, as you and many others have demonstrated, ears that do not hear, then you couldn't find the passages, even if I showed you, as the Luke passage you mentioned above, even if you saw the dead come back to life, they would NOT see it.

by Zionist Sun Jun 19, 2005 06:58

Given the comment above referring to the: "Palestinians who have lived in Palestine for thousands of years and until recently in historical terms made up over 90% of the population"

I have a question or two.

Given the long Palestinian history, could someone please name a SINGLE Palestinian leader prior to Yasser Arafat?

Just one.

Why are the Jews' presence in Israel mentioned in the ancient holy scriptures of every major religion INCLUDING Islam, yet Palestinians are mentioned in exactly NONE of them.

The answer is simple: Because prior to the 60s, there WAS no such thing as a Palestinian and such claims are rewriting of history which simply isn't borne out by the archaeological or antrhopological evidence. There were at best, some adjacent Arabs (or adjacent Jew-haters as Dennis Leary put it). You want a Palestinian state? You already have one, it's called Jordan and yet we know what the Jordanians did to the PLO in Black September don't we?

If you want to talk about Palestinians and Jews, I suggest you don't bring up history as it simply isn't on the side of the so-called Palestinians until you can tell me ANYTHING of their 'history' - language, culture, history, leaders, wars, battles and achievements, rather than randomly mentioning that they have one. They don't.

Today however, the Palestinians ARE a reality and one that Israel has accepted. Regrettably, the Paletsinians refuse to accept the reality of Israel and the bloody consequences are there for everyone to see.

If the Arabs layed down their weapons there would be no more fighting. If the Jews layed down their weapons there would be no more Israel.

Think about it.