Palestinians under attack

[metis]

Criminy, guy....I just answered these exact questions in another post of yours.
But again.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.

You gotta be kidding?! I asked the questions on post #720, so now you respond with two back-to-back posts (#721 & 722) without any response from me in-between! I see that your disingenuousness simply has no boundaries.

 

[FearGod]

@ metis

And do you think that Britain has the right to create a country to the Jews in Palestine.

 

[metis]

@ metis

And do you think that Britain has the right to create a country to the Jews in Palestine.

The U.N. had that right and exercised it with a 2/3 vote of the member nations.

Regardless as whether anyone thinks Israel should have been created, it exists, so let's deal with where we're at now.

 

[CMike]

@ metis

And do you think that Britain has the right to create a country to the Jews in Palestine.

There was no palestine.

As I stated before it was a british colony it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

4/5ths of it became Transjordan which is now jordan.

 

[FearGod]

The U.N. had that right and exercised it with a 2/3 vote of the member nations.

Regardless as whether anyone thinks Israel should have been created, it exists, so let's deal with where we're at now.

You were asking about justifying wars of ww1&2 for the US and hence i asked you how you justify the creation of Israel by Britain.

 

[Revoltingest]

I asked you twice to tell me the post number whereas you supposedly gave an answer and you didn't reply but when on to something else. And you talking about "incivility"? You gotta be kidding.

No kidding on my part. Your posts seem jumbled, & I'm multi-tasking,
so I missed any request for a post#. I don't know which one it is, but
I'll restate it:
I don't propose a specific solution for Israel & the Palestinians.
They'd have to arrive at their compromise themselves. Tis not
for outsiders to determine.

Sorry, but you did not answer these questions in any direct manner, but I appreciate the fact that you finally did this time. However, your final two answers tells me that you feel that the U.S. has the right to defend itself but apparently you don't believe Israel doesn't have that same right. That is nothing but sheer hypocrisy, Revoltingest.

Your conclusion is illogical. Israel should defend itself (something I've never opposed).
But what it does goes far beyond defense, but even worse is the unwillingness to negotiate
peaceful resolution.

And I asked you before to essentially answer the last item above and you have failed to do so. Exactly how "A way must be found to turn enemies into allies"? What do you propose? What if one group (Hamas in this case) makes it abundantly clear that for both political and religious reasons that they want Israel gone and Jews can be killed anywhere they may live? Ever read their charter? Ever listen to what their leaders have been continuously saying? Ever study the motivation of Hamas put in their own words?

As I asked you before and you never answered: what if your neighbor was attempting to kill you and your family, what would you do, especially if you can't move? Please try and answer it this time, will you.

I answered that one too. Remember "defend & negotiate" in post #690?
No? I'm not surprised.
This routine of your not seeing my answers is getting old.
It seems you're overly eager to play some game of Gotcha.

 

[metis]

You were asking about justifying wars of ww1&2 for the US and hence i asked you how you justify the creation of Israel by Britain.

There were Jews always living in that region, and there were areas whereas they formed a majority. Because of the fact that Jews trying to escape the NAZI's prior to WWII had no place to seek refuge, and because of the fact that there already was a significant Jewish presence in what the Brits called "Palestine", the U.N. made it's decision, much like they did with India and some other nations since.

Now, do you want to discuss whether these other states should have been created? If so, maybe start another thread.

 

[FearGod]

There was no palestine.

As I stated before it was a british colony it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

4/5ths of it became Transjordan which is now jordan.

So what if it was a british colony, India was, so what ?
Palestine and Palestinians did exist during the time of Jesus, Jews left Palestine to Europe long time ago and i think it was the time when the dark ages started in Europe.

 

[CMike]

So what if it was a british colony, India was, so what ?
Palestine and Palestinians did exist during the time of Jesus, Jews left Palestine to Europe long time ago and i think it was the time when the dark ages started in Europe.

Actually there were two previous Israeli states there.

1) Destroyed by the Babylonians

2) Destroyed by the Romans

There never ever was an independent muslim palestinian state in that area.

Therefore, if you want to play the whom had it first game, it was the jews.

 

[Revoltingest]

You gotta be kidding?! I asked the questions on post #720, so now you respond with two back-to-back posts (#721 & 722) without any response from me in-between! I see that your disingenuousness simply has no boundaries.

You keep missing things, & then you blame me for it.
Please just calm down, read others' posts carefully, & only then respond.
Also, if you want to converse, to just rattle off post numbers is tedious.

I've seen threads degenerate into....
Well in post #584 you contradicted post #239, which makes your post
#792 ridiculous. But you never responded to post #255, #288 or #311.
And in light of post #76, #82, #111 & #168, your post #331 is a lie!
And so on. See how that is difficult to deal with?

 

[metis]

Your conclusion is illogical. Israel should defend itself (something I've never opposed).
But what it does goes far beyond defense, but even worse is the unwillingness to negotiate
peaceful resolution.

Really, you say Israel is unwilling "to negotiate peaceful resolution"? Seriously?

I answered that one too. Remember "defend & negotiate" in post #690?
No? I'm not surprised.
This routine of your not seeing my answers is getting old.
It seems you're overly eager to play some game of Gotcha.

You have played "Gotcha" with yourself as you repeatedly didn't answer my questions and then lied by saying you did. You didn't answer most of the questions I asked but simply walked around them, so all you are doing is to continue on your disingenuous journey.

'Nuff said as you have done great harm to yourself here-- your credibility on this is shot, and you did it to yourself-- you can't blame me for that.

 

[FearGod]

Actually there were two previous Israeli states there.

1) Destroyed by the Babylonians

2) Destroyed by the Romans

There never ever was an independent muslim palestinian state in that area.

Therefore, if you want to play the whom had it first game, it was the jews.

And where did Palestinians of nowadays come from.
Were they Indians that came to Palestine after the Jews arrived to create a new land for them.

 

[metis]

And where did Palestinians of nowadays come from.
Were they Indians that came to Palestine after the Jews arrived to create a new land for them.

This is irrelevant to the conversation dealing with what the topic is. Again, let me recommend you start a new thread maybe on the topic of your choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Really, you say Israel is unwilling "to negotiate peaceful resolution"? Seriously?

When I see their mindset mirror that of yours, & others of the same ilk here, then
yes...I'm serious in saying that Israel is unwilling to negotiate peaceful resolution.
I believe that they think they're willing to negotiate, but not in a substantive way.
They won't lose that mindset that their enemy is immutable evil.

You have played "Gotcha" with yourself as you repeatedly didn't answer my questions and then lied by saying you did.

You should consider how you appear to me.
I know for a fact that I honestly address your questions (when I see them).
I've even answered some of them multiple times.
Then I see that you deny my responses, & thereby proclaim me a liar.
Would you not see your behavior as angry & petulant?

I'd rather that this not become so personal, but criminy, bub, you just wouldn't stop.
So I gave you my diagnosis.
I prescribe losing the anger & being more careful in reading posts.

 

[FearGod]

This is irrelevant to the conversation dealing with what the topic is. Again, let me recommend you start a new thread maybe on the topic of your choice.

It is on topic about the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and the claim that Palestinians has no right in Palestine because it was a British colony.

 

[metis]

I see that you deny my responses, & thereby proclaim me a liar.
.

I have to post back on this.

I did not call you a "liar", so you again are "lying". If you don't know the difference between "liar" and a "lying", and what the significance is of the difference between the two are, then maybe your education needs much enhancing.

As far as the rest of the post of yours that I didn't quote, it simply is another diversion tactic of yours to try and place blame on someone else.

 

[metis]

It is on topic about the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and the claim that Palestinians has no right in Palestine because it was a Britain colony.

I never said nor implied that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have to post back on this.

I did not call you a "liar", so you again are "lying". If you don't know the difference between "liar" and a "lying", and what the significance is of the difference between the two are, then maybe your education needs much enhancing.

As far as the rest of the post of yours that I didn't quote, it simply is another diversion tactic of yours to try and place blame on someone else.

Let's look at your post #717.....

Could you be any more disingenuous? I knew you wouldn't answer the question because I checked back on your posts and you simply lied about claiming that you did answer my questions.

The portion I underlined is relevant.
Care to re-think your post?

 

[metis]

Let's look at your post #717.....

The portion I underlined is relevant.
Care to re-think your post?

You honestly don't know the difference between "liar" and "lying"? Hint: one labels the person but the other one doesn't. Can you figure out which is which? It seems that since you can't even realize the difference between these two simple words and their implications, can there be any surprise why you're totally inconsistent when trying to deal with the Israel/Hamas conflict?

 

[Revoltingest]

You honestly don't know the difference between "liar" and "lying"?

You're trying to weasel out of your accusation using a technicality, ie, that you didn't
use the exact word "liar". But you then refer the the word, "lying", when in fact you
actually used, "lied". If you're gonna pretend a technical defense, you gotta be consistent.

Anyway, what you're dancing around is real issue...that you're accusing me
of lying by using other words which mean the same thing. Sophistry, I say!

This is all rather amusing.
Fellow posters, please excuse my wallowing in personal drama & making mirth with this guy.
I'll stop being such a jerk soon.