I'm going to tell them the truth and they'll think it's hell.
HHW
drahcir
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
Very impressive speech. Thanks for posting it. Unlike his idiot
opponent, Obama chose well. The reason you continue to post pro-Obama
items is that you are convinced that American Jews prefer McCain,
since that is the only way your world makes sense, and you see
yourself as a gadfly here at SRI, a lone yet sonorous voice of truth
in a sea of anti-american, dual-loyalist Jewish traitors. However, as
usual, your fantasy is wrong and you are just you - a used up,
alcoholic, senile fart, who is ALWAYS wrong. Gadfly, or any fly for
that matter, would be a huge step up for a maggot like you.
"Levenson is clearly among the majority of Jews who identify with
Obama..."
http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/17289/
"Barack Obama is still leading among Jews 2 to 1,"
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/15/obamas_jews/
"American Jews To Vote For Obama With Overwhelming Margin"
http://www.huliq.com/64781/american-jews-vote-obama-overwhelming-margin
Of course, the other thing that doesn't make sense in HHW world is
that the moron in the White House now, the one who chose to attack
Iraq, according to your fantasy at Israel's bidding, was hugely voted
against by American Jews. Only 24 percent of them voted for him in
2004
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/16/19427/3591
"[In 2004} Only 15 percent of American Jews said that Israel was a key
voting
issue. Among these voters, 55 percent voted for Kerry (compared to 83
percent of Jewish voters
not concerned with Israel)."
In 2000, they voted 79% Gore, 19% Bush
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
Am I getting through, H? Does reality have a prayer of penetrating
that spongy skull of yours?
HHW
> On Oct 17, 11:20 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
>
> Very impressive speech. Thanks for posting it. Unlike his idiot
> opponent, Obama chose well. The reason you continue to post pro-Obama
> items is that you are convinced that American Jews prefer McCain,
Not at all. Most are liberals. I post pro-Obama materials because
there is an election coming up which I believe to be very important.
Do you still think you Zionists own these newsgroups?
> since that is the only way your world makes sense,
Naw, I'm simply highlighting the fact that Jewish neoconservatives
tend not to be Obama supporters. No part of the lobby supports Obama.
That's because they feel safe with Bush and McSame. Obama is not such
a known quantity and he may even prove to be a statesman.
and you see
> yourself as a gadfly here at SRI, a lone yet sonorous voice of truth
> in a sea of anti-american, dual-loyalist Jewish traitors.
I see the Israel lobby as a pernicious influence. I don't think when
it comes to intimidating and bribing Congress on behalf of a foreign
country that objecting to dual-loyalty should be taboo. What AIPAC
does should be made more explicitly illegal in the criminal sense.
However, as
> usual, your fantasy is wrong and you are just you - a used up,
> alcoholic, senile fart, who is ALWAYS wrong. Gadfly, or any fly for
> that matter, would be a huge step up for a maggot like you.
It doesn't matter whether you vote McCain or Obama, Ratner. What
matters is that you want the US to continue supporting Israeli
expansionism and crimes against humanity when it is obviously not in
the American national interest. You clearly have a conflict and given
the harm that our supine and timidly uncritical support for Israel has
done us, your failure to come to grips with it is a disservice to your
country. You are only here to make it as difficult as possible for
criticism of Israel policy to take place in public. That's exactly the
way the Israel lobby functions. You're its fellow-traveler. And you're
in touch with it too.
>
> "Levenson is clearly among the majority of Jews who identify with
> Obama..."
>
> http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/17289/
>
> "Barack Obama is still leading among Jews 2 to 1,"
>
> http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/15/obamas_jews/
>
> "American Jews To Vote For Obama With Overwhelming Margin"
>
> http://www.huliq.com/64781/american-jews-vote-obama-overwhelming-margin
As I point out above this is irrelevant. The American Jewish community
and the lobby are not the same thing. And Jewish liberalism doesn't
necessarily translate very well into a rational foreign policy when
Israel is concerned. It doesn't matter that you might be voting
Democratic, Ratner. I judge you by whether you are willing to help
break the lobby's hammerlock on our Congress. You fail that test.
> Of course, the other thing that doesn't make sense in HHW world is
> that the moron in the White House now, the one who chose to attack
> Iraq, according to your fantasy at Israel's bidding,
You always exaggerate my position. There were other factors at work
but the most important was the influence of the israel lobby and it's
neoconservatives both in and outside of government. Just recently you
admitted it when confronted with a paragraph naming names from M & W.
was hugely voted
> against by American Jews. Only 24 percent of them voted for him in
> 2004
Irrelevant. It's never been American Jews per se that I have
criticized. It is the Israel lobby dominated by very conservative
Zionists which has made it virtually impossible to extricate ourselves
from this quagmire in the Middle East.
> http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/16/19427/3591
>
> "[In 2004} Only 15 percent of American Jews said that Israel was a key
> voting
> issue. Among these voters, 55 percent voted for Kerry (compared to 83
> percent of Jewish voters
> not concerned with Israel)."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5qcbgf
Irrelevant. I'm happy of course to see any tiny group voting for my
candidate and hope that they will have some positive effect in Florida
but I doubt that the Jewish VOTE will matter much.
>
> In 2000, they voted 79% Gore, 19% Bush
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
>
> Am I getting through, H? Does reality have a prayer of penetrating
> that spongy skull of yours?
"It's the economy, stupid," and the lobby, and our resultant failed
policy in the Middle East, and our dead and wounded, and our inability
to pressure the Israeli right wing, and unprincipled people like you,
Ratner. When are you going to quit pretending it is otherwise?
drahcir
> On Oct 19, 8:52 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 11:20 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
>
> > Very impressive speech. Thanks for posting it. Unlike his idiot
> > opponent, Obama chose well. The reason you continue to post pro-Obama
> > items is that you are convinced that American Jews prefer McCain,
>
> Not at all. Most are liberals. I post pro-Obama materials because
> there is an election coming up which I believe to be very important.
i see, and you figure that instead of targeting a group who is likely
to vote mccain, someplace these articles actually might have an
effect, you figured you'd post to a group being read mainly by obama
voters for who-knows-what reason. Very convincing....
> Do you still think you Zionists own these newsgroups?
LOL! Your childish attempt at lying is so pathetically laughable.
Frightening in a man of your years.
>
> > since that is the only way your world makes sense,
>
> Naw, I'm simply highlighting the fact that Jewish neoconservatives
> tend not to be Obama supporters.
jewish neoconservatives are such a tiny minority that they are
irrelevant.
No part of the lobby supports Obama.
> That's because they feel safe with Bush and McSame. Obama is not such
> a known quantity and he may even prove to be a statesman.
newsflash: israeli citizens don't get to vote in the US election.
>
> and you see
>
> > yourself as a gadfly here at SRI, a lone yet sonorous voice of truth
> > in a sea of anti-american, dual-loyalist Jewish traitors.
>
> I see the Israel lobby as a pernicious influence.
gee, H, thanks for making that crystal clear to everyone!
I don't think when
> it comes to intimidating and bribing Congress on behalf of a foreign
> country
Congress is not responsible for iraq, bush is.
that objecting to dual-loyalty should be taboo. What AIPAC
> does should be made more explicitly illegal in the criminal sense.
>
> However, as
>
> > usual, your fantasy is wrong and you are just you - a used up,
> > alcoholic, senile fart, who is ALWAYS wrong. Gadfly, or any fly for
> > that matter, would be a huge step up for a maggot like you.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you vote McCain or Obama, Ratner.
H thinks he can somehow convince a soul that this is about how I **I**
vote.
We've been down that road before, H. You refused to acknowledge why
you kept replying to me with anti-mccain crap, playing it like a coy
little girl in order to escape your misapprehension of my political
leanings.
What
> matters is that you want the US to continue supporting Israeli
> expansionism and crimes against humanity when it is obviously not in
> the American national interest.
What matters to me is perfectly clear to all on this board, including
you. You need to lie about it to make it seem as though you have some
grand plan which includes your enmity towards me. The real reason you
need to lie is simple: you come across as such an incredible fool in
each and every discourse we have that the only way you can try to save
face is to make it part of a grand, noble, altruistic plan. the
pretense of caring for the plight of arabs makes antisemites feel so
good about the
You clearly have a conflict
Anyone care to guess as to what this oaf means by the above?
and given
> the harm that our supine and timidly uncritical support for Israel has
> done us, your failure to come to grips with it is a disservice to your
> country.
translation: H thinks antisemitism is patriotic.
You are only here to make it as difficult as possible for
> criticism of Israel policy to take place in public. That's exactly the
> way the Israel lobby functions. You're its fellow-traveler. And you're
> in touch with it too.
All this just to cover the fact that you misconstrued jewish voting
patterns. As usual, wasted bandwidth.
>
> > "Levenson is clearly among the majority of Jews who identify with
> > Obama..."
>
> >http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/17289/
>
> > "Barack Obama is still leading among Jews 2 to 1,"
>
> >http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/15/obamas_jews/
>
> > "American Jews To Vote For Obama With Overwhelming Margin"
>
> >http://www.huliq.com/64781/american-jews-vote-obama-overwhelming-margin
>
> As I point out above this is irrelevant. The American Jewish community
> and the lobby are not the same thing. And Jewish liberalism doesn't
> necessarily translate very well into a rational foreign policy when
> Israel is concerned. It doesn't matter that you might be voting
> Democratic, Ratner. I judge you by whether you are willing to help
> break the lobby's hammerlock on our Congress. You fail that test.
In a nutshell, here's why your world makes no sense. You claim the
lobby is responsible for iraq. the lobby has power only because of
american jewry - if there were no jews in the US, there would be no
israel lobby here. Yet, american jewry has overwhelmingly voted
against the very people who are most responsive the the lobby. Want
proof of the fact that you are lying here when you claim that you are
aware of "jewish liberalism". Here's a quote, one of many, from H on
the subject of american jewry. It's from a conversation you had with
Al Smith, famous for his quote "Science is an ass."
> This is not true of all Jews, of course, but the Zionists are in
> the driver's seat, and the majority of Jews acquiesce to their
> wishes most of the time, when it comes to the American
> relationship with Israel. Dissent among the Jews themselves on
> this issue is savagely attacked by Zionists, who are able to
> control America because they control the media, and also the
> politicians in Washington.
> -Al-
Well said, Al. I'm not sure about that transition from outspoken and
courageous leadership of the civil rights movement to silence and
complicity regarding the Palestinians---I wish you had explained your
thoughts about how that happened---but this is a very well reasoned
observation.
I believe it's that within the Jewish community the economic and thus
the political power has shifted radically to the right.
Maybe you are under the mistaken impression that liberalism is
represented by the right direction??? LOL! LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!!
>
> > Of course, the other thing that doesn't make sense in HHW world is
> > that the moron in the White House now, the one who chose to attack
> > Iraq, according to your fantasy at Israel's bidding,
>
> You always exaggerate my position.
Really? When, specifically?
There were other factors at work
> but the most important was the influence of the israel lobby
So if the most important was israel's lobby, and I say that you say
that it was at israel's bidding, you see this as somehow a distortion
of your position? interesting.....
and it's
> neoconservatives both in and outside of government. Just recently you
> admitted it when confronted with a paragraph naming names from M & W.
Again, above makes zero sense. The names the oafs mentioned are
obvious - bush and the neocons, and that mention does nothing to
diminish the responsibility they attribute to israel. Of course these
are the very people jews in the us overwhelmingly voted AGAINST -
those same jews you have repeatedly accused of being dual loyalists.
So we clearly see that HHW world is bizarroland. Watching you squirm
now is just entertainment for every soul in this group.
> was hugely voted
>
> > against by American Jews. Only 24 percent of them voted for him in
> > 2004
>
> Irrelevant. It's never been American Jews per se that I have
> criticized.
I see. So you have never questioned the loyalty of american jewry, eh?
It is the Israel lobby dominated by very conservative
> Zionists which has made it virtually impossible to extricate ourselves
> from this quagmire in the Middle East.
>
> >http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/16/19427/3591
>
> > "[In 2004} Only 15 percent of American Jews said that Israel was a key
> > voting
> > issue. Among these voters, 55 percent voted for Kerry (compared to 83
> > percent of Jewish voters
> > not concerned with Israel)."
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/5qcbgf
>
> Irrelevant. I'm happy of course to see any tiny group voting for my
> candidate and hope that they will have some positive effect in Florida
> but I doubt that the Jewish VOTE will matter much.
So i guess the question remains unanswered, H, as to why you post
articles to those you "already knew" were obama voters questioning the
faculties of mccain and extolling those of obama. Are we to believe
that you simply enjoy preaching to the choir? Give it up, you silly
liar - your world makes no sense.
>
>
>
> > In 2000, they voted 79% Gore, 19% Bush
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
>
> > Am I getting through, H? Does reality have a prayer of penetrating
> > that spongy skull of yours?
>
> "It's the economy, stupid," and the lobby, and our resultant failed
> policy in the Middle East, and our dead and wounded, and our inability
> to pressure the Israeli right wing, and unprincipled people like you,
> Ratner. When are you going to quit pretending it is otherwise?
You're so cute when you're cornered.
HHW
> On Oct 22, 3:34 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 8:52 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 11:20 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
I hate to send this as I haven´t re-read it, but the cafe is closing.
>
> > > Very impressive speech. Thanks for posting it. Unlike his idiot
> > > opponent, Obama chose well. The reason you continue to post pro-Obama
> > > items is that you are convinced that American Jews prefer McCain,
>
> > Not at all. Most are liberals. I post pro-Obama materials because
> > there is an election coming up which I believe to be very important.
>
> i see, and you figure that instead of targeting a group who is likely
> to vote mccain, someplace these articles actually might have an
> effect, you figured you'd post to a group being read mainly by obama
> voters for who-knows-what reason. Very convincing....
"Targeting"? Do you still think you are entitled to dictate who should
say what on a usenet group? You actually affect umbrage that I address
readers of a "Jewish" website on political matters? You really aren´t
much of an American, Ratner. Speech is free here. And speakers don´t
owe anyone a justification for indulging it. I don´t have any burden
of convincing you.
Liberal Jewish voters will have a stake in changing our benighted
policies in the Middle East. Lots of them live in Manhattan too, the
last ground zero. There will be little to work with if McCain
succeeds.
As you point out most Jews are not among my Democratic/Republican
*political* opponents. The latter are the Israel lobby, the
neoconservative movement and bitter-end Zionist fanatics who display
*your* self-same conflict of interest. I´ve said many times that my
hope here lies in communicating with liberal Jewish intellectuals and
humanists. Who knows? Maybe I´m not doing that and it´s only the
filthy fringe such as you represent to whom I speak here. Nevertheless
I continue and will do so until the problems associated with our
Israel policy are solved. I´m just that drop of water in the sea but
believe we should all contribute. "All" includes Jews of good will.
> > Do you still think you Zionists own these newsgroups?
>
> LOL! Your childish attempt at lying is so pathetically laughable.
> Frightening in a man of your years.
You repeat it in this post. You accuse me of "targeting" a group¨
i.e., Jews. You can only take that position if you believe I don´t
have a right to address them, moral or whatever.
> > > since that is the only way your world makes sense,
>
> > Naw, I'm simply highlighting the fact that Jewish neoconservatives
> > tend not to be Obama supporters.
>
> jewish neoconservatives are such a tiny minority that they are
> irrelevant.
Read the damned book, Ratner. Try to assume personal responsiblity,
moral and ethical responsibility, for what you say. With enough money
and with a willingness to ignore the conflict of interest, tiny
minorities can have immense impact on our legislative and
administrative proceses. It´s not a function of the numbers of
people involved, but of what they are willing to spend and the extent
of their lack of commitment to the welfare of the country.
> No part of the lobby supports Obama.
>
> > That's because they feel safe with Bush and McSame. Obama is not such
> > a known quantity and he may even prove to be a statesman.
>
> newsflash: israeli citizens don't get to vote in the US election.
The hell they don´t. Jack votes here. But this is a minor detail.
>
>
>
> > and you see
>
> > > yourself as a gadfly here at SRI, a lone yet sonorous voice of truth
> > > in a sea of anti-american, dual-loyalist Jewish traitors.
>
> > I see the Israel lobby as a pernicious influence.
>
> gee, H, thanks for making that crystal clear to everyone!
The word is spelled "Jesus".
> I don't think when
>
> > it comes to intimidating and bribing Congress on behalf of a foreign
> > country
>
> Congress is not responsible for iraq, bush is.
So you admit that the lobby is intimidating and bribing Congress on
behalf of a foreign country. Explain now why you don´t join me in this
struggle?
>
> that objecting to dual-loyalty should be taboo. What AIPAC
>
> > does should be made more explicitly illegal in the criminal sense.
>
> > However, as
>
> > > usual, your fantasy is wrong and you are just you - a used up,
> > > alcoholic, senile fart, who is ALWAYS wrong. Gadfly, or any fly for
> > > that matter, would be a huge step up for a maggot like you.
You´re a weakling, Ratner. Whenever I get to the bottom line regarding
policy you lapse into filth as an alternative to addressing it. All you
´re doing here is trying to enforce the taboos against criticizing the
lobby and Israeli policy. Your technique is that of the lobby with
only some of your personal filthiness added.
>
> > It doesn't matter whether you vote McCain or Obama, Ratner.
>
> H thinks he can somehow convince a soul that this is about how I **I**
> vote.
How you vote is irrelevant. I´m not really talking to you.
> We've been down that road before, H. You refused to acknowledge why
> you kept replying to me with anti-mccain crap, playing it like a coy
> little girl in order to escape your misapprehension of my political
> leanings.
I assure you that it will end in a few days. But howsoever I may
answer you then, I´ll still be talking past you. You´ve provided me
with a bully pulpit.
>
> What
>
> > matters is that you want the US to continue supporting Israeli
> > expansionism and crimes against humanity when it is obviously not in
> > the American national interest.
>
> What matters to me is perfectly clear to all on this board, including
> you.
As I say, you support Israeli expansionism and crimes against
humanity which are not in the American national interest. You do it
primarily by trying to silence critics of Israeli policy. That´s the
technique of radical, politicized, American Zionists. The Mearsheimer
& Walt study demonstrates it beyond reasonable doubt. And one doesn´t
even need to have read the book to know it.
You need to lie about it to make it seem as though you have some
> grand plan which includes your enmity towards me.
What "lie" do you speak of, Ratner. And how could you possibly
perceive me to be your enemy? I have repeatedly offered you a truce
regarding things "personal". You refuse it. You refuse it because the
filth is all you´ve got. It´s you leit motiv and you can think of
nothing else which might drive me away.
The real reason you
> need to lie is simple: you come across as such an incredible fool in
> each and every discourse we have that the only way you can try to save
> face is to make it part of a grand, noble, altruistic plan.
Hardley, I have very modest ambitions here, simply to make a
contribution to the welfare of my country in a time of crisis. You are
here to make a contribution to the welfare of Israel in a time of
crisis. The problem is that you´re an American, not an Israeli.
the
> pretense of caring for the plight of arabs makes antisemites feel so
> good about the
>
> You clearly have a conflict
>
> Anyone care to guess as to what this oaf means by the above?
One who labels another an antisemite as the consequence of his
recognition of the plight of the Palestinian Arabs has an obvious
conflict of interest. And even the few oafs on this ng will understand
it. You keep making such infantile mistakes here, Ratner. Perhaps if
you had some life experience......
>
> and given
>
> > the harm that our supine and timidly uncritical support for Israel has
> > done us, your failure to come to grips with it is a disservice to your
> > country.
>
> translation: H thinks antisemitism is patriotic.
Translation: Ratner wants the readership to *believe* that speaking
out against our supine support of Israel despite her crimes against
humanity and the associated dangers for our own country is
antisemitic.
>
> You are only here to make it as difficult as possible for
>
> > criticism of Israel policy to take place in public. That's exactly the
> > way the Israel lobby functions. You're its fellow-traveler. And you're
> > in touch with it too.
>
> All this just to cover the fact that you misconstrued jewish voting
> patterns. As usual, wasted bandwidth.
I have certainly not misconstrued them. That´s not what I´ve been
addressing.
> > > "Levenson is clearly among the majority of Jews who identify with
> > > Obama..."
>
> > >http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/17289/
>
> > > "Barack Obama is still leading among Jews 2 to 1,"
>
> > >http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/15/obamas_jews/
>
> > > "American Jews To Vote For Obama With Overwhelming Margin"
>
> > >http://www.huliq.com/64781/american-jews-vote-obama-overwhelming-margin
>
> > As I point out above this is irrelevant. The American Jewish community
> > and the lobby are not the same thing. And Jewish liberalism doesn't
> > necessarily translate very well into a rational foreign policy when
> > Israel is concerned. It doesn't matter that you might be voting
> > Democratic, Ratner. I judge you by whether you are willing to help
> > break the lobby's hammerlock on our Congress. You fail that test.
>
> In a nutshell, here's why your world makes no sense. You claim the
> lobby is responsible for iraq.
What you say about my positions on these issues is always simplistic,
distorted, designed to mislead. What I say here is that the lobby and
the neoconservative movement and neoconservative Jews in government
and the Israeli government of Sharon, taken as a whole, were
*extremely* influential in driving us to war. It has been been proved
to my satisfaction that without them it probably could not have been
done. I never argue historical certainty in complex matters.
Nevertheless my personal opinion is consistent with this argument.
You do everything you can to avoid coming to grips with it. You
inevitably attack me instead of the ideas I represent. It´s gutless,
dishonest and has no effect on me whatever. You simply provide me with
a convenient foil.
the lobby has power only because of
> american jewry - if there were no jews in the US, there would be no
> israel lobby here.
Think now. If there were no American Jews the Israel lobby would of
necessity be an "Israeli Lobby". It would be subject to the
legislation which regulates the conduct of foreign lobbies including
elaborate reporting and the prohibition against interfering with the
American electoral process. One of your myriad problems is your
naivete.
Yet, american jewry has overwhelmingly voted
> against the very people who are most responsive the the lobby.
Irrelevant. The sources of the lobby`s political power are largely
independent of Jewish voting patterns.
Want
> proof of the fact that you are lying here when you claim that you are
> aware of "jewish liberalism". Here's a quote, one of many, from H on
> the subject of american jewry. It's from a conversation you had with
> Al Smith, famous for his quote "Science is an ass."
>
> > This is not true of all Jews, of course, but the Zionists are in
> > the driver's seat, and the majority of Jews acquiesce to their
> > wishes most of the time, when it comes to the American
> > relationship with Israel. Dissent among the Jews themselves on
> > this issue is savagely attacked by Zionists, who are able to
> > control America because they control the media, and also the
> > politicians in Washington.
> > -Al-
>
> Well said, Al. I'm not sure about that transition from outspoken and
> courageous leadership of the civil rights movement to silence and
> complicity regarding the Palestinians---I wish you had explained your
> thoughts about how that happened---but this is a very well reasoned
> observation.
>
> I believe it's that within the Jewish community the economic and thus
> the political power has shifted radically to the right.
How many times must I say it? The Jewish community by and large can
vote for Obama in the privacy of the voting booty, but they do not
rise publicly in large numbers against the lobby or against Israel´s
foreign policy. They do not by and large call for an end to the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the imprisonment of the
Gazans. They do not by and large organize against the lobby and
struggle to counteract its effects. This seems to me to be a fact you
are unwilling to deal with. Unless you do, and do it credibly, my
analysis stands. I have the impression that the obscenely wealthy
Zionist movers and shakers in the States constitute a reIatively new
"conservative" phenomenon in Jewish circles. I think Jewish liberals
don´t do these things I describe above because they don´t feel that
they can defeat these extremely conservative, wealthy Zionists and don
´t want to run similar risks as do the goyim here who speak up.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/599zme
>
> Maybe you are under the mistaken impression that liberalism is
> represented by the right direction??? LOL! LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!!
Only the intellectually dishonest describe opinions as lies. It´s
consistent with your behavior ever since you showed up here. To what
do you attribute the uncontested rise of the Israel lobby in its
present form in the United States? I´ve given my opinion. What´s
yours?
It´s stupid to pretend to be something you aren´t in a debate. In this
situation I can´t imagine how you´d even think I´d have an incentive
to do so. Israel´s history with the Palestinians is notorious and
known by all who care to find out. The lobby´s nature is now an open
book. Even if I were so inclined I have no reason misrepresent this
history. You simply don´t want it discussed in public. Sorry about
that.
> > > Of course, the other thing that doesn't make sense in HHW world is
> > > that the moron in the White House now, the one who chose to attack
> > > Iraq, according to your fantasy at Israel's bidding,
>
> > You always exaggerate my position.
>
> Really? When, specifically?
I´ve explained it already above.
>
> There were other factors at work
>
> > but the most important was the influence of the israel lobby
>
> So if the most important was israel's lobby, and I say that you say
> that it was at israel's bidding, you see this as somehow a distortion
> of your position? interesting.....
But for the lobby, Israel´s bidding would have been ineffective. We´d
have had immense influence with her. Can you see no difference
between AIPAC and Israel? I don´t have any difficulty with it.
>
> and it's
>
> > neoconservatives both in and outside of government. Just recently you
> > admitted it when confronted with a paragraph naming names from M & W.
>
> Again, above makes zero sense. The names the oafs mentioned are
> obvious - bush and the neocons, and that mention does nothing to
> diminish the responsibility they attribute to israel.
You say you haven´t read Mearsheimer and Walt´s book. Unless you are
lying you simply don´t know what they attribute to Israel. I have read
it, more than once. I do know. When you display the good sense to read
it instead of just talking about it in this stupid fashion, we can
talk about it.
> You're so cute when you're cornered.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
drahcir
> justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 3:34 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 8:52 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 17, 11:20 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
>
> I hate to send this as I haven´t re-read it, but the cafe is closing.
>
>
>
> > > > Very impressive speech. Thanks for posting it. Unlike his idiot
> > > > opponent, Obama chose well. The reason you continue to post pro-Obama
> > > > items is that you are convinced that American Jews prefer McCain,
>
> > > Not at all. Most are liberals. I post pro-Obama materials because
> > > there is an election coming up which I believe to be very important.
>
> > i see, and you figure that instead of targeting a group who is likely
> > to vote mccain, someplace these articles actually might have an
> > effect, you figured you'd post to a group being read mainly by obama
> > voters for who-knows-what reason. Very convincing....
>
> "Targeting"? Do you still think you are entitled to dictate who should
> say what on a usenet group?
try to get a grip. No one is dictating. I am simply pointing out that
your claim makes no sense. This is obviously just another of so very
many examples of you trying to hide your mistakes.
You actually affect umbrage that I address
> readers of a "Jewish" website on political matters?
H doesn't believe for a minute what he is writing. He thinks he can
hide the fact that it's simply a smokescreen to try to mask his
misapprehension of jewish voting preferences.
You really aren´t
> much of an American, Ratner. Speech is free here. And speakers don´t
> owe anyone a justification for indulging it. I don´t have any burden
> of convincing you.
H hiding yet another blunder is now a 1st amendment issue. LOL!
>
> Liberal Jewish voters will have a stake in changing our benighted
> policies in the Middle East. Lots of them live in Manhattan too,
All of you who thought H an ignoramus, take that!
the
> last ground zero. There will be little to work with if McCain
> succeeds.
>
> As you point out most Jews are not among my Democratic/Republican
> *political* opponents. The latter are the Israel lobby, the
> neoconservative movement and bitter-end Zionist fanatics who display
> *your* self-same conflict of interest. I´ve said many times that my
> hope here lies in communicating with liberal Jewish intellectuals and
> humanists. Who knows? Maybe I´m not doing that and it´s only the
> filthy fringe such as you represent to whom I speak here. Nevertheless
> I continue and will do so until the problems associated with our
> Israel policy are solved. I´m just that drop of water in the sea but
> believe we should all contribute. "All" includes Jews of good will.
Sheesh, when this guy is doing his smokescreen dance, he fingers start
typing away as nonsensically as Palin's mouth talks.
> > > Do you still think you Zionists own these newsgroups?
>
> > LOL! Your childish attempt at lying is so pathetically laughable.
> > Frightening in a man of your years.
>
> You repeat it in this post. You accuse me of "targeting" a group¨
> i.e., Jews. You can only take that position if you believe I don´t
> have a right to address them, moral or whatever.
H, you are so transparent, it's so incredibly pathetic.
>
> > > > since that is the only way your world makes sense,
>
> > > Naw, I'm simply highlighting the fact that Jewish neoconservatives
> > > tend not to be Obama supporters.
>
> > jewish neoconservatives are such a tiny minority that they are
> > irrelevant.
>
> Read the damned book, Ratner.
But wait, H, I am Count1, did you forget? And as the group knows,
Count1 said he was reading "the damned book". Are you losing track of
your hallucinations and lies?
Try to assume personal responsiblity,
> moral and ethical responsibility, for what you say.
Yet more smokescreen. the proven liar talks about responsibility of
various ilks to deflect attention from his own dilemma.
With enough money
> and with a willingness to ignore the conflict of interest, tiny
> minorities can have immense impact on our legislative and
> administrative proceses. It´s not a function of the numbers of
> people involved, but of what they are willing to spend and the extent
> of their lack of commitment to the welfare of the country.
Here we go again. More repetitious blahblah all devised to distract
from his error and from the fact that his world makes NO SENSE, as I
have proven earlier in this thread.
>
> > No part of the lobby supports Obama.
>
> > > That's because they feel safe with Bush and McSame. Obama is not such
> > > a known quantity and he may even prove to be a statesman.
>
> > newsflash: israeli citizens don't get to vote in the US election.>
> The hell they don´t. Jack votes here. But this is a minor detail.
>
>
>
> > > and you see
>
> > > > yourself as a gadfly here at SRI, a lone yet sonorous voice of truth
> > > > in a sea of anti-american, dual-loyalist Jewish traitors.
>
> > > I see the Israel lobby as a pernicious influence.
>
> > gee, H, thanks for making that crystal clear to everyone!
>
> The word is spelled "Jesus".
gee –interjection Informal.
(used to express surprise, disappointment, enthusiasm, or simple
emphasis): Gee, that's great! Gee, I can't remember the book's title.
>
> > I don't think when
>
> > > it comes to intimidating and bribing Congress on behalf of a foreign
> > > country
>
> > Congress is not responsible for iraq, bush is.
>
> So you admit that the lobby is intimidating and bribing Congress on
> behalf of a foreign country.
Sheesh, man, take a logic lesson.
Explain now why you don´t join me in this
> struggle?
Your "struggle"? How noble! How altruistic! How sympathetic! Too bad
your "struggle" is nothing more than some thinly veiled "jews suck".
You don't need me. You have plenty of support here, um, let's see,
there's ben and a few other fine examples of humanity who try to make
you feel a wee bit better after taking your licks from me. Most here
know that your true struggle is trying to not appear as a fool in
every single discussion you have here, and it should be obvious why I
won't join you there.
>
>
> > that objecting to dual-loyalty should be taboo. What AIPAC
>
> > > does should be made more explicitly illegal in the criminal sense.
>
> > > However, as
>
> > > > usual, your fantasy is wrong and you are just you - a used up,
> > > > alcoholic, senile fart, who is ALWAYS wrong. Gadfly, or any fly for
> > > > that matter, would be a huge step up for a maggot like you.
>
> You´re a weakling, Ratner. Whenever I get to the bottom line regarding
> policy you lapse into filth as an alternative to addressing it. All you
> ´re doing here is trying to enforce the taboos against criticizing the
> lobby and Israeli policy. Your technique is that of the lobby with
> only some of your personal filthiness added.
you are sounding your age, H.
>
>
>
> > > It doesn't matter whether you vote McCain or Obama, Ratner.
>
> > H thinks he can somehow convince a soul that this is about how I **I**
> > vote.
>
> How you vote is irrelevant. I´m not really talking to you.
>
> > We've been down that road before, H. You refused to acknowledge why
> > you kept replying to me with anti-mccain crap, playing it like a coy
> > little girl in order to escape your misapprehension of my political
> > leanings.
>
> I assure you that it will end in a few days.
Take that, all of you who say that H is not brilliant. it's so cute
the way you simply cannot admit an error. You know why that is, right
H? Of course it's because you have no confidence in your position.
But howsoever I may
> answer you then, I´ll still be talking past you. You´ve provided me
> with a bully pulpit.
>
I am ever so happy that you enjoy that which I provide you. You'll be
enjoying it so long as you post here.
>
> > What
>
> > > matters is that you want the US to continue supporting Israeli
> > > expansionism and crimes against humanity when it is obviously not in
> > > the American national interest.
>
> > What matters to me is perfectly clear to all on this board, including
> > you.
>
> As I say, you support Israeli expansionism and crimes against
> humanity which are not in the American national interest. You do it
> primarily by trying to silence critics of Israeli policy. That´s the
> technique of radical, politicized, American Zionists. The Mearsheimer
> & Walt study demonstrates it beyond reasonable doubt. And one doesn´t
> even need to have read the book to know it.
You are forced to cite nonsense sources because your point of view is
nonsense. Simple. When your sources are shown to be nonsense, you
simply leave the thread. That about sums it up.
>
> You need to lie about it to make it seem as though you have some
>
> > grand plan which includes your enmity towards me.
>
> What "lie" do you speak of, Ratner. \
H, quit referring to things far up in the thread. The time to ask a
question is immediately after a statement. go back up the thread an
look it up. My allotted 5 minutes of reply to you is nearly up.
And how could you possibly
> perceive me to be your enemy? I have repeatedly offered you a truce
> regarding things "personal".
I call you senile, You post my personal info. You see those things as
equivalent because you are a morally bereft individual. That amorality
is the reason you perceive jews the way you do, and your "struggle" is
nothing more than a realization of your perception of jews. Simple.
You refuse it. You refuse it because the
> filth is all you´ve got. It´s you leit motiv and you can think of
> nothing else which might drive me away.
I have driven you away on numerous occasions. I have cited a few of
the times you have fled repeatedly. the thing about usenet is that if
a person has no pride whatever, he may reappear after being proven a
lowlife.
>
> The real reason you
>
> > need to lie is simple: you come across as such an incredible fool in
> > each and every discourse we have that the only way you can try to save
> > face is to make it part of a grand, noble, altruistic plan.
>
> Hardley, I have very modest ambitions here, simply to make a
> contribution to the welfare of my country in a time of crisis. You are
> here to make a contribution to the welfare of Israel in a time of
> crisis. The problem is that you´re an American, not an Israeli.
You are here to try to make a fool of yourself. I am here to ensure
that happens.
> the
>
> > pretense of caring for the plight of arabs makes antisemites feel so
> > good about the
>
> > You clearly have a conflict
>
> > Anyone care to guess as to what this oaf means by the above?
>
> One who labels another an antisemite as the consequence of his
> recognition of the plight of the Palestinian Arabs has an obvious
> conflict of interest.
There is nothing obvious about he above. The "plight" of arabs is
distorted all the time for antisemitic ends, in fact it is probably
one of he primary vehicles of propaganda of the antisemite. "Obvious"
indeed.
And even the few oafs on this ng will understand
> it. You keep making such infantile mistakes here, Ratner. Perhaps if
> you had some life experience......
>
>
>
> > and given
>
> > > the harm that our supine and timidly uncritical support for Israel has
> > > done us, your failure to come to grips with it is a disservice to your
> > > country.
>
> > translation: H thinks antisemitism is patriotic.
>
> Translation: Ratner wants the readership to *believe* that speaking
> out against our supine support of Israel despite her crimes against
> humanity and the associated dangers for our own country is
> antisemitic.
>
It is antisemitic. It is antisemitic because the history and
motivation for the deplorable situation today is distorted for
antisemitic ends. It is why maggots like you are forced to bandy about
only trash like Pappe as if it is gospel, never having cracked even
one history that is respected as objective for fear that truth might
seep in.
>
> > You are only here to make it as difficult as possible for
>
> > > criticism of Israel policy to take place in public. That's exactly the
> > > way the Israel lobby functions. You're its fellow-traveler. And you're
> > > in touch with it too.
>
> > All this just to cover the fact that you misconstrued jewish voting
> > patterns. As usual, wasted bandwidth.
>
> I have certainly not misconstrued them. That´s not what I´ve been
> addressing.
Of course that's not what you've "been addressing". That's your
smokescreen. Did you forget the thread starter, you senile oaf?
>
>
>
> > > > "Levenson is clearly among the majority of Jews who identify with
> > > > Obama..."
>
> > > >http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/17289/
>
> > > > "Barack Obama is still leading among Jews 2 to 1,"
>
> > > >http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/15/obamas_jews/
>
> > > > "American Jews To Vote For Obama With Overwhelming Margin"
>
> > > >http://www.huliq.com/64781/american-jews-vote-obama-overwhelming-margin
>
> > > As I point out above this is irrelevant. The American Jewish community
> > > and the lobby are not the same thing. And Jewish liberalism doesn't
> > > necessarily translate very well into a rational foreign policy when
> > > Israel is concerned. It doesn't matter that you might be voting
> > > Democratic, Ratner. I judge you by whether you are willing to help
> > > break the lobby's hammerlock on our Congress. You fail that test.
>
> > In a nutshell, here's why your world makes no sense. You claim the
> > lobby is responsible for iraq.
>
>
> What you say about my positions on these issues is always simplistic,
> distorted, designed to mislead. What I say here is that the lobby and
> the neoconservative movement and neoconservative Jews in government
> and the Israeli government of Sharon, taken as a whole, were
> *extremely* influential in driving us to war.
I am not going to waste time here. It's a beautiful saturday. Anyone
needing info on whether H is being truthful can do a google groups
search for "ashbrook mearsheimer" with either H or me as author.
It has been been proved
> to my satisfaction that without them it probably could not have been
> done. I never argue historical certainty in complex matters.
> Nevertheless my personal opinion is consistent with this argument.
> You do everything you can to avoid coming to grips with it. You
> inevitably attack me instead of the ideas I represent. It´s gutless,
> dishonest and has no effect on me whatever. You simply provide me with
> a convenient foil.
>
> the lobby has power only because of
>
> > american jewry - if there were no jews in the US, there would be no
> > israel lobby here.
>
> Think now. If there were no American Jews the Israel lobby would of
> necessity be an "Israeli Lobby". It would be subject to the
> legislation which regulates the conduct of foreign lobbies including
> elaborate reporting and the prohibition against interfering with the
> American electoral process. One of your myriad problems is your
> naivete.
H is here trying to derail by straw man the simple, logical exposition
of why his world makes no sense.
>
> Yet, american jewry has overwhelmingly voted
>
> > against the very people who are most responsive the the lobby.
>
> Irrelevant. The sources of the lobby`s political power are largely
> independent of Jewish voting patterns.
Really? Pray tell, how then do these crafty jews then gain their
influence? Do they have special, mysterious powers? Please, fill us
in.
> Want
>
> > proof of the fact that you are lying here when you claim that you are
> > aware of "jewish liberalism". Here's a quote, one of many, from H on
> > the subject of american jewry. It's from a conversation you had with
> > Al Smith, famous for his quote "Science is an ass."
>
> > > This is not true of all Jews, of course, but the Zionists are in
> > > the driver's seat, and the majority of Jews acquiesce to their
> > > wishes most of the time, when it comes to the American
> > > relationship with Israel. Dissent among the Jews themselves on
> > > this issue is savagely attacked by Zionists, who are able to
> > > control America because they control the media, and also the
> > > politicians in Washington.
> > > -Al-
>
> > Well said, Al. I'm not sure about that transition from outspoken and
> > courageous leadership of the civil rights movement to silence and
> > complicity regarding the Palestinians---I wish you had explained your
> > thoughts about how that happened---but this is a very well reasoned
> > observation.
>
> > I believe it's that within the Jewish community the economic and thus
> > the political power has shifted radically to the right.
>
> How many times must I say it? The Jewish community by and large can
> vote for Obama in the privacy of the voting booty,
h's dirty mind's freudian slip
but they do not
> rise publicly in large numbers against the lobby or against Israel´s
> foreign policy.
true. NO GROUP rises publicly in large numbers against the lobby,
except perhaps arabs and antisemites, but I can't recall that having
happened, either.
They do not by and large call for an end to the
> Israeli occupation of the West Bank
That is because most jews are against a complete withdrawal from the
west bank. And that is because most jews are aware of how the jews
came to be in the west bank in the first place.
and the imprisonment of the
> Gazans. They do not by and large organize against the lobby and
> struggle to counteract its effects. This seems to me to be a fact you
> are unwilling to deal with. Unless you do, and do it credibly, my
> analysis stands. I have the impression that the obscenely wealthy
> Zionist movers and shakers in the States constitute a reIatively new
> "conservative" phenomenon in Jewish circles. I think Jewish liberals
> don´t do these things I describe above because they don´t feel that
> they can defeat these extremely conservative, wealthy Zionists and don
> ´t want to run similar risks as do the goyim here who speak up.
>
Sheesh, H on his soapbox is incredibly boring. I have better things to
do than read this masturbator's rants. Until next time, my prince.
Count 1
But wait, H, I am Count1,
Really? Cool, because I'm looking for a suitable liver donor. Mine is shot
from years of debauchery.
***
did you forget? And as the group knows,
Count1 said he was reading "the damned book". Are you losing track of
your hallucinations and lies?
***
Yep, but I stopped. The book is a complete waste of time. It offers nothing
of value except speculation, half truths, innuendo, and parsed information.
It has - literally - neither rhyme nor reason.
I started to write a review but decided there is no point. Several people
reviewing the book have already said what I was going to say.
This is one of the better reviews I've read - it lays bare just how
different Walt and Mearshimer's book is from reality.
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/03_israel_rabinovich.aspx
drahcir
Very good review. Thanks.
Did you see the diatribe H presented above? Who does he think he is,
Tolstoy? It's amazing the lengths he will go to do try to distract
from his fuckups. I gave up after a while - the weather was too good
today.\
Haven't seen you for awhile. How have you been?
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nlwwFZdXck
An ex-student of mine sent it to me. It's the best thing I've ever
seen on youtube. I call it antiscat - scat is singing nonsense
syllables over music, antiscat is playing music over nonsense
syllables.
B.H. Cramer
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a85dd6f-742a-4025...@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 12:25 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ***
> But wait, H, I am Count1,
> ***
>
> Really? Cool, because I'm looking for a suitable liver donor. Mine is shot
> from years of debauchery.
>
> ***
> did you forget? And as the group knows,
> Count1 said he was reading "the damned book". Are you losing track of
> your hallucinations and lies?
> ***
>
> Yep, but I stopped. The book is a complete waste of time. It offers
> nothing
> of value except speculation, half truths, innuendo, and parsed
> information.
> It has - literally - neither rhyme nor reason.
>
> I started to write a review but decided there is no point. Several people
> reviewing the book have already said what I was going to say.
>
> This is one of the better reviews I've read - it lays bare just how
> different Walt and Mearshimer's book is from reality.
>
>> http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/03_israel_rabinovich.aspx
>Very good review. Thanks.
Review my arse. It's a whole bunch of yid whining, deceit and distortion.
Count 1
***
Very good review. Thanks.
***
You're welcome.
***
Did you see the diatribe H presented above?
***
Nope. I don't tend to bother with the content from someone I've already
killfiled. Can't follow their train of thought, and can't be bothered to
try.
***
Who does he think he is,
Tolstoy? It's amazing the lengths he will go to do try to distract
from his fuckups. I gave up after a while - the weather was too good
today.\
***
Amen to that. He is a waste of time.
***
Haven't seen you for awhile. How have you been?
***
Excellent, thanks. It's my busy season at work, so I'm not around much these
days. I see this place hasn't changed much.
***
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nlwwFZdXck
An ex-student of mine sent it to me. It's the best thing I've ever
seen on youtube. I call it antiscat - scat is singing nonsense
syllables over music, antiscat is playing music over nonsense
syllables.
***
That's mean! - ok - And funny too.
HHW
various stuff which is all tangential and ad hominem.
The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
NefeshBarYochai
HHW is a white supremacist abbreviation for - Heil - H - Hitler – H –
Willingly – W thus HHW
drahcir
Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
opinion about settlements - I have voiced that opinion on numerous
occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them. Besides, the
'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
thread starter. Of course, you don't remember that you started this
thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
you. P.S. An editorial does not prescribe, it suggests.
dsharavi
> > The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> > have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> > need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> > the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> > Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
On Nov 5, 4:30 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
> opinion about settlements - I have voiced that opinion on numerous
> occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them. Besides, the
> 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> thread starter. Of course, you don't remember that you started this
> thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> you.
We can expect a bit of comic relief now and then, can't we? Take, for
example, the Israeli-supporting burger-flippers mentioned above.
"Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our
job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve
peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do
not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road
map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security
throughout the region. That effort begins with a clear and strong
commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region
and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting
point."
"We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense
relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and
continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.
This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel
attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And when Israel is
attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend
itself."
-- Burger Flipping President-elect Barack Obama
Deborah
B.H. Cramer
On Nov 5, 3:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 9:08 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> various stuff which is all tangential and ad hominem.
>
> The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
>Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
>opinion about settlements -
They aren't referred to as "settlements" in Ersatz israel now, RATner.
They're referred to as "neighborhoods." Sounds all warm and fuzzy, doesn't
it. Never mind the deception.
HHW
>
> I started to write a review but decided there is no point. Several people
> reviewing the book have already said what I was going to say.
You announced that you would not write a review of it after all before
you read it. That speaks clearly, Ratner.
HHW
> >http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/03_israel_rabinovich.aspx
> ***
Clip
> Check this out:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nlwwFZdXck
>
> An ex-student of mine sent it to me. It's the best thing I've ever
> seen on youtube. I call it antiscat - scat is singing nonsense
> syllables over music, antiscat is playing music over nonsense
> syllables.
Tell us, Ratner, what you want us to believe your sock teaches? We'll
see if he knows anything about it,
HHW
Not long ago you were behaving here like a white supremacist. Now
you're attributing it to another. Did you have a visit from the
authorities ad interim?
Israel Argaman Tekhelet ישראל ארגמן תכלת
No I heard on TV about those white supremacists that were planning to
murder Obama. The TV article said HHW are code word sgnals that white
supremacists recognize as Heil - H - Hitler – H – Willingly – W thus
HHW. You are the one with those intials not me.
HHW
> On Nov 5, 3:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 9:08 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > various stuff which is all tangential and ad hominem.
>
> > The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> > have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> > need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> > the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> > Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
>
> Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
> opinion about settlements -
Of course not. You read it though. Haha.
I have voiced that opinion on numerous
> occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them.
You voice misrepresentations and diversions, Ratner.
Besides, the
> 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> thread starter.
Naw, we take the broader view.
Of course, you don't remember that you started this
> thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> you. P.S. An editorial does not prescribe, it suggests.
The editorial was stronger than that. And in any event you are
contradicting your line about your personal views in this very post.
HHW
> > On Nov 5, 3:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> > > have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> > > need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> > > the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> > > Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
>
> On Nov 5, 4:30 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
> > opinion about settlements - I have voiced that opinion on numerous
> > occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them. Besides, the
> > 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> > thread starter. Of course, you don't remember that you started this
> > thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> > you.
>
> We can expect a bit of comic relief now and then, can't we? Take, for
> example, the Israeli-supporting burger-flippers mentioned above.
>
> "Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real.
No one denies it and fewer but fewer and fewer are attributing it to
genetic defects among Arabs.
Our
> job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve
> peace with its neighbors
Exactly. One helps Isarael achieve peace by insisting upon genuine
efforts to that end and by insisting that she accept American
leadership and the centrality of American interests.
while remaining vigilant against those who do
> not share this vision.
Perhaps skinheads and Nazis don't share this vision of peace. Other
than Zionists, can you identify any?
Our job is to do more than lay out another road
> map;
This is an attack on Bush's policy which, like that of the Likud,
always envisioned the imposition of a settlement on the Palestinians,
one in which Israeli goals were attained and Palestinian goals were
not, one in which actual Palestinian sovereignty would be impossible.
My first difficulty with your apparent interpretation of this line is
that it is not consistent with the American interest. So long as this
impotent policy of failing to pressure the parties continues America
can not escape the Israel mess n the Middle East. She must make it
clear that Israel must vacate the West Bank and recognize a fully
independent Palestinian State.
our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security
> throughout the region.
Yes and to that end it is our job to get tough with the parties, to
make clear that we're at the end of our patience and are ready to do
what is necessary to get the task completed.
That effort begins with a clear and strong
> commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region
> and its only established democracy.
Yes, and a commitment to her security means a defensive alliance with
responsibility beginning at the green line.
That will always be my starting
> point."
> "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense
> relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance
Yes, it's a *defense* relationship, not a commitment to consolidating
Israeli expansionism.
and
> continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.
Yes, but of course once peace is made and is reasonably successful
military support for Israel will be reassessed. That may take a
domestic confrontation with the Zionist, arch-conservative, right-wing
Israel lobby. They are accustomed to the luxury of writing the aid
legislation.
> This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel
> attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And when Israel is
> attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend
> itself."
Note carefully that helping Israel militarily has nothing to de with
helping her consolidate her grip on the West Bank. This obligation is
defensive, obviously. And American policy has always been that the
occupation must end.
> -- Burger Flipping President-elect Barack Obama
>
> Deborah
Obama can only be relieved of his duties by the American people once
in the next eight years.
There will be a settlement while Obama is President. It has to be high
on his list.
drahcir
Show the supposed contradiction clearly.
Peace Power
Since Arial Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut is in a coma,
Deborah Sharavi must be using his swastika axe to kill
Palestinian children with for her "recipe":
http://aliyaallzionists.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sharon-killing-children.jpg
This Is How Violent Zionists Are: Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe”:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
<Heinr...@mailgate.org> wrote:
> As usual, you left out the part about the IDF
> eating their palestinian prey after they kill them.
> It’s the reason the dead palestinian numbers
> are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions
and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole,
melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat,
and then remove and reduce the flame.
Add the onion, carrot and turnip,
cover and let simmer for an hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider.
Bring to a boil, add the bouquet garni,
cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2 hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole
and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole,
pressing down on the vegetables
to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter,
pour over some of the juices
and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/
http://jewsdisgustedbyzionism.blogspot.com/2008/09/deborah-sharavis-swastika-axe.html
http://sharavidoyouenjoybeingacannibal.blogspot.com/
http://sharavidoyouenjoybeingacannibal.blogspot.com/2008/09/which-one-is-it.html
http://sharavidoyouenjoybeingacannibal.blogspot.com/2008/09/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-for.html
http://jewsdisgustedbyzionism.blogspot.com/
http://jewsdisgustedbyzionism.blogspot.com/2008/09/which-one-is-it.html
http://jewsdisgustedbyzionism.blogspot.com/2008/09/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-for.html
http://angelesdeesse.spaces.live.com/
http://chitchatzionist.blogspot.com/2008/07/bizarre-insane.html
http://fourthreichisrael.blogspot.com/
http://fourthreichisrael.blogspot.com/2008/08/deborah-sharavis-zionist-cannibalistic.html
http://fourthreichisrael.blogspot.com/2008/09/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-for.html
http://fourthreichisrael.blogspot.com/2008/09/are-all-zionists-racists.html
http://fourthreichisrael.blogspot.com/2008/09/which-one-is-it.html
http://zionismequalsapartheid.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2305868%3ATopic%3A9
http://canadiansforpalestine.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2145294%3ATopic%3A1564
http://fourthreichisrael.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2277326%3ATopic%3A11
http://madalenalobaotellosnetwork2.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=949499%3ATopic%3A14587
http://chitchatzionist.blogspot.com/2008/07/bizarre-insane.html
HHW
Show a failure of the contradiction clearly.
HHW
The subject at hand is Israeli aggression, crimes against humanity and
her oppression of our government when it comes to our policy in the
Middle East.
The Babbling Babbler of Walkinshire
I saw it on Fox News. The neo-nazis use HH as a code sign to
recognize each other by. HH stands for Heil Hitler. In HHW cse it is
Heil Hitler Willingly.
drahcir
Oh H, that is just so funny! You have nothing, zilch, and you actually
think you can weasel out with the above! You made my day, thanks ever
so much.
P.S. You were so panicked and intent on figuring out what you could
say that would relieve you from showing the contradiction, you wrote a
sentence that makes no sense. What you meant to say was "show that
there was no contradiction", or some such thing. In this case, the
supposed contradiction doesn't "fail", whatever that may mean, so
obviously I can't show its failure, or rather one of its failures,
since you wrote "a", not "the". This, of course, doesn't begin to
address the well-known fact that, even had you stated what you wanted
to state, it would be a child's ploy, since everyone knows that you
can't prove the non-existence of something. And finally, oaf that you
are, you don't see any obligation whatever to support your accusation,
rather asking me in a nonsensical way to disprove it, if I understand
your gibberish correctly.
drahcir
Try reading the first post in this thread again, H. You wrote it.
Perhaps that will remind you what the subject of this thread is. If
you would then like to start a new thread about Israeli aggression or
any other of your ridiculous mirages, no doubt replete with quotes
from Pappe and M&W, please feel free to.
HHW
>
> Oh H, that is just so funny! You have nothing, zilch, and you actually
> think you can weasel out with the above! You made my day, thanks ever
> so much.
So neither of is is going to be put to work by the other? That's fine
with me.
>
> P.S. You were so panicked and intent on figuring out what you could
> say that would relieve you from showing the contradiction, you wrote a
> sentence that makes no sense.
It wasn't written well. I've fixed it above. Your turn.
HHW
> On Nov 13, 3:57 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 6:30 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 5, 3:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 9:08 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > various stuff which is all tangential and ad hominem.
>
> > > > The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> > > > have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> > > > need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> > > > the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> > > > Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
>
> > > Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
> > > opinion about settlements - I have voiced that opinion on numerous
> > > occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them. Besides, the
> > > 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> > > thread starter. Of course, you don't remember that you started this
> > > thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> > > you. P.S. An editorial does not prescribe, it suggests.
>
> > The subject at hand is Israeli aggression, crimes against humanity and
> > her oppression of our government when it comes to our policy in the
> > Middle East.
>
> Try reading the first post in this thread again, H. You wrote it.
Just set forth the contradiction. You're worried about being
contradicted.
> Perhaps that will remind you what the subject of this thread is. If
> you would then like to start a new thread about Israeli aggression...please feel free to.
I did that a few minutes ago. Take a look. It's compiled by an Arab
apparently.
drahcir
Next time, please sober up before posting.
drahcir
You are an ass. You make an accusation and when asked to back it up,
have nothing, and that's fine with you. Here's a newsflash: it's not
fine with anyone who participates in reality.
>
>
>
> > P.S. You were so panicked and intent on figuring out what you could
> > say that would relieve you from showing the contradiction, you wrote a
> > sentence that makes no sense.
>
> It wasn't written well. I've fixed it above. Your turn.
Actually, my turn was taken in my last post. It was contained in the
part of the P.S. you snipped because it was too painful for you to
contend with. I will paste it here:
HHW
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Panties all in a knot, Richard?
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
(www.grishenkoff.com)
Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people under subjection
receive many emails from angry Muslims, who sometimes beg me, and
sometimes order me to remove this site. I consider both, pleading and
bullying, signs of psychopathology. Argumentum ad baculum and
argumentum ad misericordiam are both logical fallacies.,,If you do not
like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as a bully or
as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not
only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a
true religion. I will also pay ,,$50,000 U.S. dollars ,,to anyone who
can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made
against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:,a narcissist a misogynist
a rapist,a pedophile a lecher a torturer -
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm
HHW
> On Nov 14, 2:45 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 nov, 17:12, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 3:38 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 6:53 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 10, 4:43 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 6:30 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 3:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 9:08 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > various stuff which is all tangential and ad hominem.
>
> > > > > > > > The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> > > > > > > > have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> > > > > > > > need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> > > > > > > > the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> > > > > > > > Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
And how did you respond?
> > > > > > > Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
> > > > > > > opinion about settlements -
>
> > > > > > Of course not. You read it though. Haha.
>
> > > > > > I have voiced that opinion on numerous
>
> > > > > > > occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them.
You can´t seem to get the knot out of your panties, Ratner. You can´t
control your anger. You haven´t in in truth expressed that opinion
because it is meaningless unless call for the AMERICAN policies which
will force, encourage if you will, Israel to give up the West Bank.
You have never done that. You want Israel to coninue to cream the aid
and protection benefits which are the result of lobby corruption of
the political process and continue to stiff us. You are a supporter of
the lobby, a dishonest supporter of the lobby.
> > > > > > You voice misrepresentations and diversions, Ratner.
>
> > > > > > Besides, the
>
> > > > > > > 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> > > > > > > thread starter.
>
> > > > > > Naw, we take the broader view.
>
> > > > > > Of course, you don't remember that you started this
>
> > > > > > > thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> > > > > > > you.
Virtually no threads are lock-stepped by their headers, much less
those you participate in. In reality you fear the flexiblity and open-
endedness of internet debate.
P.S. An editorial does not prescribe, it suggests.
>
> > > > > > The editorial was stronger than that. And in any event you are
> > > > > > contradicting your line about your personal views in this very post.
>
> > > > > Show the supposed contradiction clearly.
>
> > > > Show a failure, i.e., lack of the contradiction clearly.
>
> > > Oh H, that is just so funny! You have nothing, zilch, and you actually
> > > think you can weasel out with the above! You made my day, thanks ever
> > > so much.
>
> > So neither of is is going to be put to work by the other? That's fine
> > with me.
>
> You are an ass. You make an accusation and when asked to back it up,
> have nothing, and that's fine with you. Here's a newsflash: it's not
> fine with anyone who participates in reality.
Reality, some examples:
In the interests of the United States, the Israel lobby must be
reined-in and the policies it has heretofore imposed *changed*. We now
have the best opportunity to accomplish that in 40 years. I´m
optimistic. We´ll see.
In the meantime toying with you is amusing--though the reason that´s
all that´s available from you doesn´t speak well of your intellectual
honesty. Or of the breadth of your education and life experience.
It is a "reality" that our Israel policy has been a disaster. You
could deny it and enter the debate but haven´t because you make the
small-minded mistake of believing your best bet is to attack me
instead of the issues. The fact is you know that if you engage me on
these issues I will defeat you, publicly, and that is exactly what you
and the lobby want to avoid in the overall policy sense.
It is reality that the Israel lobby has had a corrupting influence on
American politics and on our Middle East policy in particular. It is
corrupting in the sense that what it enforces is contrary to our
national interests and the price we have been paying has been
horrendous. It also includes in part responsibility in the origins of
three Middle Eastern wars.
It has been corrupting in the moral and reputational sense. We have
been paying an awful price for that too. Your pretence of having
refused to read Mearsheimer & Walt (on principle, haha) is nothing but
a scam to avoid having to deal with it in public. The same is true of
your effort to quote Zionist Jewish critics of the book, thus
pretending that conflict of interest is consistent with objectivity.
> > > P.S. You were so panicked and intent on figuring out what you could
> > > say that would relieve you from showing the contradiction, you wrote a
> > > sentence that makes no sense.
I was most probably half asleep. That´s not consisent with panic.
> > It wasn't written well. I've fixed it above. Your turn.
>
> Actually, my turn was taken in my last post.
Not at all. You didn´t address it. You only address typos.
It was contained in the
> part of the P.S. you snipped because it was too painful for you to
> contend with. I will paste it here:
But where is it, Ratner? Did you forget?
>
> What you meant to say was "show that
> there was no contradiction", or some such thing. In this case, the
> supposed contradiction doesn't "fail", whatever that may mean, so
> obviously I can't show its failure, or rather one of its failures,
> since you wrote "a", not "the". This, of course, doesn't begin to
> address the well-known fact that, even had you stated what you wanted
> to state, it would be a child's ploy, since everyone knows that you
> can't prove the non-existence of something. And finally, oaf that you
> are, you don't see any obligation whatever to support your accusation,
> rather asking me in a nonsensical way to disprove it, if I understand
> your gibberish correctly.- Hide quoted text -
HHW
off-subject crap. This is a small token of the need to stay on
subject:
How the Israel Lobby Took America to WarWEBWIRE – Thursday, October
30, 2008
Contact Information Jeff Gates
STATE STREET PUBLICATIONS
STATE STREET PUBLICATIONS
480-994-1492
jeffg...@gmail.com (WASHINGTON, D.C.) In a blockbuster new book, a
former counsel to the U.S. Senate documents how the Israel lobby led
the effort to take America to war in pursuit of Tel Aviv’s
expansionist agenda. This searing indictment of the American Israeli
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) depicts Washington’s most powerful
lobby as a nest of foreign agents working against America’s interests
in the Middle East.
This first book in the Criminal State series documents efforts
spanning six decades that were designed to manipulate the U.S.
military in pursuit of goals to which an informed American public
would not have agreed. Instead of giving Americans a choice, Tel Aviv
imbedded its operations inside the U.S. foreign policy apparatus while
falsely insisting that AIPAC was a domestic lobbying organization.
Indifferent to party affiliation, AIPAC is shown to infiltrate both
political parties as it imbeds pro-Israelis in policy-making positions
across successive presidencies, both Democrat and Republican. Written
to “make treason transparent,” Guilt By Association reveals how
Zionist operatives manipulated U.S. policy since well before Israel’s
founding in 1948.
Author Jeff Gates presents a richly nuanced account of insider treason
and transnational criminality that remains ongoing while the U.S. is
at war. By chronicling how Israel wages war by way of deception, the
author documents the sophisticated espionage operations that deceived
America to wage war in Iraq and now seeks to expand that war to Iran.
With 80 pages of endnotes, Guilt By Association combines scholarly
research with vigorous advocacy to reveal the inner workings of a
transnational criminal syndicate, laying the groundwork for wide-
ranging indictments. Based on the consistency of Israeli duplicity
over multiple decades, Guilt argues that lawmakers worldwide must
revisit the legitimacy of Zionism as a basis for sovereignty.
A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and
consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff
Gates’ previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street
From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared
Capitalism for the 21st Century. Endorsers for these books include
CEOs, heads of state, legislators, educators, commentators and Nobel
laureates.
This book is available now. For more information, or to order, go to
www.criminalstate.com.
Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to
War is poised to become the first in a best-selling Criminal State
series. (ISBN: 978-0-9821315-0-3; $27.95; 320 pages; 5½” x 8½”;
perfect bound soft cover; State Street Publications).
Related Links www.criminalstate.com
This news content may be integrated into any legitimate news gathering
and publishing effort. Linking is permitted.
HHW
> On Oct 17, 11:20 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
>
> Very impressive speech. Thanks for posting it. Unlike his idiot
> opponent, Obama chose well. The reason you continue to post pro-Obama
> items is that you are convinced that American Jews prefer McCain,
> since that is the only way your world makes sense, and you see
> yourself as a gadfly here at SRI, a lone yet sonorous voice of truth
> in a sea of anti-american, dual-loyalist Jewish traitors. However, as
> usual, your fantasy is wrong and you are just you - a used up,
> alcoholic, senile fart, who is ALWAYS wrong. Gadfly, or any fly for
> that matter, would be a huge step up for a maggot like you.
Sign up for our newsletter:
Get in a chatroom with Jeff Gates himself! The third Saturday of
every month Jeff will get on this website and chat with people across
the globe. Bring your questions, challenges, and even thoughts to the
table! Remember, it's the third Saturday of every month!
Welcome to the Criminal State website!
We’re new at this, so please let us know what you like—and don’t like—
about what you see. As our goal is to serve you, we invite your input
on any aspect of our operation. The criminality exposed on this site
can be solved. But that requires an informed public able to see it for
themselves. That’s our purpose.
Here you will find the tools required to grasp how organized crime
operates in plain view yet with impunity. You will also learn who is
involved and for what purpose.
When you can see this systemic criminality for yourself, we are
confident you will join us in solving it.
What do others say about the book?
"Breathless just reading it."
- Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
"Explosively revelatory, powerful, compelling and certain to be highly
contentious."
- Ambassador Ed Peck, Deputy Director, Cabinet Task Force on
Terrorism, Reagan White House; former Chief of Mission, Baghdad
Become a part of the movement!
Criminal State was founded to help restore healthy communities. And to
recover the informed consent essential to self-governance.
The criminality most perilous to democracy succeeds by displacing
facts with what you can be induced to believe. Those identified prey
on the manipulation of beliefs, on faith and on the good faith of
others.
That’s where the undisclosed bias of mainstream media comes into play.
Spend some time on this site and that mental manipulation will become
transparent. As will its impact on politics and on the health of
communities.
Ask yourself, where does a shared belief reside—also known as a
“consensus”? That is where modern-day warfare is waged by those
masterful at shaping beliefs.
READ MORE
drahcir
Don't worry about my underwear, H. Worry about whether you have the
ability to string a few words together into a coherent sentence.
drahcir
> On Nov 14, 6:38 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 2:45 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 nov, 17:12, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 13, 3:38 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 10, 6:53 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 10, 4:43 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 6:30 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 3:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 9:08 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > various stuff which is all tangential and ad hominem.
>
> > > > > > > > > The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> > > > > > > > > have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> > > > > > > > > need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> > > > > > > > > the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> > > > > > > > > Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
>
> And how did you respond?
Are you aware of the fact that you're replying to yourself, a post
from about a week ago?
>
> > > > > > > > Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
> > > > > > > > opinion about settlements -
>
> > > > > > > Of course not. You read it though. Haha.
>
> > > > > > > I have voiced that opinion on numerous
>
> > > > > > > > occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them.
>
> You can´t seem to get the knot out of your panties, Ratner. You can´t
> control your anger. You haven´t in in truth expressed that opinion
> because it is meaningless
The above simply makes no sense. Besides the stuttering, they teach
you in fourth grade that what follows "because" should be the cause of
what precedes it. The meaningfulness of my opinion in no way affects
whether I have expressed it. Believe me, H, you are working with half
a deck to start, you haven't a prayer of not making an idiot of
yourself so long as you insist on posting drunk.
unless call for the AMERICAN policies which
> will force, encourage if you will, Israel to give up the West Bank.
Are you nuts? Give up the west bank?? Why? Arabs had a chance to abide
by the green line, and they chose not to. As I have said many times,
israel needs to decide on her borders, make the needed annexations,
and terminate all settlements outside those borders. Simple.
> You have never done that.
Why would any objective person do that?
You want Israel to coninue to cream the aid
"coninue to cream the aid"?? is that the tequila talking?
> and protection benefits which are the result of lobby corruption of
> the political process and continue to stiff us. You are a supporter of
> the lobby, a dishonest supporter of the lobby.
Can't you just picture H drooling over his keyboard, sipping between
words?
>
> > > > > > > You voice misrepresentations and diversions, Ratner.
>
> > > > > > > Besides, the
>
> > > > > > > > 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> > > > > > > > thread starter.
>
> > > > > > > Naw, we take the broader view.
>
> > > > > > > Of course, you don't remember that you started this
>
> > > > > > > > thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> > > > > > > > you.
>
> Virtually no threads are lock-stepped by their headers, much less
> those you participate in. In reality you fear the flexiblity and open-
> endedness of internet debate.
Whatever....
>
> P.S. An editorial does not prescribe, it suggests.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > The editorial was stronger than that. And in any event you are
> > > > > > > contradicting your line about your personal views in this very post.
>
> > > > > > Show the supposed contradiction clearly.
>
> > > > > Show a failure, i.e., lack of the contradiction clearly.
>
> > > > Oh H, that is just so funny! You have nothing, zilch, and you actually
> > > > think you can weasel out with the above! You made my day, thanks ever
> > > > so much.
>
> > > So neither of is is going to be put to work by the other? That's fine
> > > with me.
>
> > You are an ass. You make an accusation and when asked to back it up,
> > have nothing, and that's fine with you. Here's a newsflash: it's not
> > fine with anyone who participates in reality.
>
> Reality, some examples:
>
> In the interests of the United States, the Israel lobby must be
> reined-in and the policies it has heretofore imposed *changed*. We now
> have the best opportunity to accomplish that in 40 years. I´m
> optimistic. We´ll see.
The accusation, you friggin senile lush, was of some "contradiction".
Did you forget?
> In the meantime toying with you is amusing--though the reason that´s
> all that´s available from you doesn´t speak well of your intellectual
> honesty. Or of the breadth of your education and life experience.
You think that by typing "toying with you", that you can make anyone
forget that you accused me of a contradiction, I asked you to
illustrate it, and you are doing your usual tapdance to avoid
specifying. Yawn...
And now, H is going to enter blahblah mode, where he thinks he can
inundate with stream-of-unconsciousness verbiage to try to distract
from the contradiction that has yet to be specified. He actually
thinks there is a soul on earth who will read it.
>
> It is a "reality" that our Israel policy has been a disaster. You
> could deny it and enter the debate but haven´t because you make the
> small-minded mistake of believing your best bet is to attack me
> instead of the issues. The fact is you know that if you engage me on
> these issues I will defeat you, publicly, and that is exactly what you
> and the lobby want to avoid in the overall policy sense.
>
> It is reality that the Israel lobby has had a corrupting influence on
> American politics and on our Middle East policy in particular. It is
> corrupting in the sense that what it enforces is contrary to our
> national interests and the price we have been paying has been
> horrendous. It also includes in part responsibility in the origins of
> three Middle Eastern wars.
>
> It has been corrupting in the moral and reputational sense. We have
> been paying an awful price for that too. Your pretence of having
> refused to read Mearsheimer & Walt (on principle, haha) is nothing but
> a scam to avoid having to deal with it in public. The same is true of
> your effort to quote Zionist Jewish critics of the book, thus
> pretending that conflict of interest is consistent with objectivity.
>
> > > > P.S. You were so panicked and intent on figuring out what you could
> > > > say that would relieve you from showing the contradiction, you wrote a
> > > > sentence that makes no sense.
>
> I was most probably half asleep. That´s not consisent with panic.
for H, asleep is a euphemism for drunk.
>
> > > It wasn't written well. I've fixed it above. Your turn.
>
> > Actually, my turn was taken in my last post.
>
> Not at all. You didn´t address it. You only address typos.
>
> It was contained in the
>
> > part of the P.S. you snipped because it was too painful for you to
> > contend with. I will paste it here:
>
> But where is it, Ratner? Did you forget?
It's just below now, H. Thanks for not forcing me to paste it again.
HHW
> On Nov 19, 3:23 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 6:38 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 2:45 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 nov, 17:12, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 13, 3:38 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 10, 6:53 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 10, 4:43 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 6:30 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 3:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 9:08 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > various stuff which is all tangential and ad hominem.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> > > > > > > > > > have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> > > > > > > > > > need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> > > > > > > > > > the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> > > > > > > > > > Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
>
> > And how did you respond?
>
> Are you aware of the fact that you're replying to yourself, a post
> from about a week ago?
Answer the question. How did you respond?
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
> > > > > > > > > opinion about settlements -
>
> > > > > > > > Of course not. You read it though. Haha.
>
> > > > > > > > I have voiced that opinion on numerous
>
> > > > > > > > > occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them.
>
> > You can´t seem to get the knot out of your panties, Ratner. You can´t
> > control your anger. You haven´t in in truth expressed that opinion
> > because it is meaningless
>
> The above simply makes no sense.
Of course it is. Something which is devoid of meaning can not be an
opinion.
Besides the stuttering, they teach
> you in fourth grade that what follows "because" should be the cause of
> what precedes it. The meaningfulness of my opinion in no way affects
> whether I have expressed it.
You expressed nothing. That which has no meaning is nothing.
Believe me, H, you are working with half
> a deck to start, you haven't a prayer of not making an idiot of
> yourself so long as you insist on posting drunk.
>
> unless call for the AMERICAN policies which
>
> > will force, encourage if you will, Israel to give up the West Bank.
>
> Are you nuts? Give up the west bank?? Why?
Because it's in the American interest. Because it is American policy.
Because it's the only way an enduring settlement may be reached.
Because America needs a settlement of this filthy stand-off. Because
Israel simply *wants* the West Bank. It doesn't need it. And because
forcing her to withdraw will be a part of recovering autonomy over our
Middle Eastern foreign policy.
Arabs had a chance to abide
> by the green line, and they chose not to.
Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
chose not to.
As I have said many times,
> israel needs to decide on her borders, make the needed annexations,
> and terminate all settlements outside those borders. Simple.
Simple minded. It presumes that Israel will impose her will by fiat.
The only way she can hope to accomplish that over the long run is with
American backing, unlimited and unending American backing regardless
of the cost.
>
> > You have never done that.
>
> Why would any objective person do that?
>
> You want Israel to coninue to cream the aid
>
> "coninue to cream the aid"?? is that the tequila talking?
You know what it means. Try unearned largess.
>
> > and protection benefits which are the result of lobby corruption of
> > the political process and continue to stiff us. You are a supporter of
> > the lobby, a dishonest supporter of the lobby.
>
> Can't you just picture H drooling over his keyboard, sipping between
> words?
Can you just picture the mess you'll be in if you attempt to respond?
Why, yes you can. That's why you almost never do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > You voice misrepresentations and diversions, Ratner.
>
> > > > > > > > Besides, the
>
> > > > > > > > > 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> > > > > > > > > thread starter.
>
> > > > > > > > Naw, we take the broader view.
>
> > > > > > > > Of course, you don't remember that you started this
>
> > > > > > > > > thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> > > > > > > > > you.
>
> > Virtually no threads are lock-stepped by their headers, much less
> > those you participate in. In reality you fear the flexiblity and open-
> > endedness of internet debate.
>
> Whatever....
You don't engage in it opposite me. You can't handle that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > P.S. An editorial does not prescribe, it suggests.
>
> > > > > > > > The editorial was stronger than that. And in any event you are
> > > > > > > > contradicting your line about your personal views in this very post.
>
> > > > > > > Show the supposed contradiction clearly.
>
> > > > > > Show a failure, i.e., lack of the contradiction clearly.
>
> > > > > Oh H, that is just so funny! You have nothing, zilch, and you actually
> > > > > think you can weasel out with the above! You made my day, thanks ever
> > > > > so much.
>
> > > > So neither of is is going to be put to work by the other? That's fine
> > > > with me.
>
> > > You are an ass. You make an accusation and when asked to back it up,
> > > have nothing, and that's fine with you. Here's a newsflash: it's not
> > > fine with anyone who participates in reality.
>
> > Reality, some examples:
>
> > In the interests of the United States, the Israel lobby must be
> > reined-in and the policies it has heretofore imposed *changed*. We now
> > have the best opportunity to accomplish that in 40 years. I´m
> > optimistic. We´ll see.
>
> The accusation, you friggin senile lush, was of some "contradiction".
> Did you forget?
How can you deny that the subject immediately above, set by you, is
"reality" in our context?
>
> > In the meantime toying with you is amusing--though the reason that´s
> > all that´s available from you doesn´t speak well of your intellectual
> > honesty. Or of the breadth of your education and life experience.
>
> You think that by typing "toying with you", that you can make anyone
> forget that you accused me of a contradiction,
I've accused you of lots of things: a filthy sort of arrogance, of
having no significant life experience, of having a poor and
insufficient education, of not working for a living, of generating
awful music and parading it before the public via a High School
Orchestra, of using a Canadian e-mail account as a sock and then not
even being able to coordinate it's "personality." I can dredge up more
if you like.
I asked you to
> illustrate it, and you are doing your usual tapdance to avoid
> specifying. Yawn...
I dont' run errands for you. Or don't you recall.
>
> And now, H is going to enter blahblah mode, where he thinks he can
> inundate with stream-of-unconsciousness verbiage to try to distract
> from the contradiction that has yet to be specified. He actually
> thinks there is a soul on earth who will read it.
I haven't been posting much lately. The computer is on the fritz and
we'rein the midst of our 9 day fiesta for the patron saint of the
village. It's much more fun.
> > It is a "reality" that our Israel policy has been a disaster. You
> > could deny it and enter the debate but haven´t because you make the
> > small-minded mistake of believing your best bet is to attack me
> > instead of the issues. The fact is you know that if you engage me on
> > these issues I will defeat you, publicly, and that is exactly what you
> > and the lobby want to avoid in the overall policy sense.
>
> > It is reality that the Israel lobby has had a corrupting influence on
> > American politics and on our Middle East policy in particular. It is
> > corrupting in the sense that what it enforces is contrary to our
> > national interests and the price we have been paying has been
> > horrendous. It also includes in part responsibility in the origins of
> > three Middle Eastern wars.
>
> > It has been corrupting in the moral and reputational sense. We have
> > been paying an awful price for that too. Your pretence of having
> > refused to read Mearsheimer & Walt (on principle, haha) is nothing but
> > a scam to avoid having to deal with it in public. The same is true of
> > your effort to quote Zionist Jewish critics of the book, thus
> > pretending that conflict of interest is consistent with objectivity.
>
> > > > > P.S. You were so panicked and intent on figuring out what you could
> > > > > say that would relieve you from showing the contradiction, you wrote a
> > > > > sentence that makes no sense.
>
> > I was most probably half asleep. That´s not consisent with panic.
>
> for H, asleep is a euphemism for drunk.
>
Have you had your aids test lately?
>
> > > > It wasn't written well. I've fixed it above. Your turn.
>
> > > Actually, my turn was taken in my last post.
>
> > Not at all. You didn´t address it. You only address typos.
>
> > It was contained in the
>
> > > part of the P.S. you snipped because it was too painful for you to
> > > contend with. I will paste it here:
>
> > But where is it, Ratner? Did you forget?
>
> It's just below now, H. Thanks for not forcing me to paste it again.
But it's not there. All one has to do to deal with crap is delete it.
drahcir
> On Nov 19, 9:01 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 3:23 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 6:38 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 14, 2:45 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 13 nov, 17:12, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 13, 3:38 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 10, 6:53 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 10, 4:43 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 6:30 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 3:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 9:08 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > various stuff which is all tangential and ad hominem.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The election is now over. In a little over two months the people who
> > > > > > > > > > > have aided and abetted Israeli policy will be flipping burgers. We
> > > > > > > > > > > need to return to the subject at hand. I suggest that you begin with
> > > > > > > > > > > the New York Time's editorial today which prescribes the duties of the
> > > > > > > > > > > Israeli government so far as the settlements are concerned.
>
> > > And how did you respond?
>
> > Are you aware of the fact that you're replying to yourself, a post
> > from about a week ago?
>
> Answer the question. How did you respond?
You actually think the group does not perceive your desperate attempt
to change the subject to try to escape from your obligation to cite
the "contradiction" that you first mentioned a week ago:
> > > > > The editorial was stronger than that. And in any event you are
> > > > > contradicting your line about your personal views in this very post.
in this thread, and which I have asked you many times now to cite
precisely. The fact that you can't do it doesn't surprise anyone, and
neither does your present desperate ploy to get me to answer some
nonsense question that was generated by you REPLYING TO YOURSELF, from
a post from many days before this nonsense question.. This is simply
all H-babble to try to escape from citing the contradiction you
accused me of, and it is nothing if not amazing that you think you can
put one over on readers here.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Listen, I don't need the New York Time [sic] to help me form an
> > > > > > > > > > opinion about settlements -
>
> > > > > > > > > Of course not. You read it though. Haha.
>
> > > > > > > > > I have voiced that opinion on numerous
>
> > > > > > > > > > occasions, so take your suggestions and shove them.
>
> > > You can´t seem to get the knot out of your panties, Ratner. You can´t
> > > control your anger. You haven´t in in truth expressed that opinion
> > > because it is meaningless
>
> > The above simply makes no sense.
>
> Of course it is.
Is there anyone who doubts that H is now simply senile beyond hope? To
"the above simply makes no sense" he answers "of course it is". Of
course, it is very, very sad.
Something which is devoid of meaning can not be an
> opinion.
Yet more H-babble. the brain plaques have taken over.
> Besides the stuttering, they teach
> > you in fourth grade that what follows "because" should be the cause of
> > what precedes it. The meaningfulness of my opinion in no way affects
> > whether I have expressed it.
>
> You expressed nothing. That which has no meaning is nothing.
>
> Believe me, H, you are working with half
>
> > a deck to start, you haven't a prayer of not making an idiot of
> > yourself so long as you insist on posting drunk.
>
> > unless call for the AMERICAN policies which
>
> > > will force, encourage if you will, Israel to give up the West Bank.
>
> > Are you nuts? Give up the west bank?? Why?
>
> Because it's in the American interest.
Let me get this straight. You think Israel should give up the west
bank because, in your opinion, that's in the american interest. So,
it's your opinion that israel should act not in her own interest, but
in america's. Do I have that right, H?
Because it is American policy.
I see, it is american policy that israel should give up the west bank.
Uh-huh....
> Because it's the only way an enduring settlement may be reached.
I hope that's not true, but if it is, well, ok.
> Because America needs a settlement of this filthy stand-off.
Irrelevant.
Because
> Israel simply *wants* the West Bank. It doesn't need it.
It needs it a hell of a lot more than america needed texas.
And because
> forcing her to withdraw will be a part of recovering autonomy over our
> Middle Eastern foreign policy.
The above is silly.
> Arabs had a chance to abide
>
> > by the green line, and they chose not to.
>
> Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> chose not to.
Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
>
> As I have said many times,
>
> > israel needs to decide on her borders, make the needed annexations,
> > and terminate all settlements outside those borders. Simple.
>
> Simple minded. It presumes that Israel will impose her will by fiat.
> The only way she can hope to accomplish that over the long run is with
> American backing, unlimited and unending American backing regardless
> of the cost.
Arabs lost the wb in a war of aggression. Tough luck.
>
>
> > > You have never done that.
>
> > Why would any objective person do that?
>
> > You want Israel to coninue to cream the aid
>
> > "coninue to cream the aid"?? is that the tequila talking?
>
> You know what it means. Try unearned largess.
>
I figured "coninue" is continue. "cream the aid" is anyone's guess.
>
> > > and protection benefits which are the result of lobby corruption of
> > > the political process and continue to stiff us. You are a supporter of
> > > the lobby, a dishonest supporter of the lobby.
>
> > Can't you just picture H drooling over his keyboard, sipping between
> > words?
>
> Can you just picture the mess you'll be in if you attempt to respond?
> Why, yes you can. That's why you almost never do.
>
Respond to your silly lobby accusation? Give me a break. your whole
lobby shtick is a sham, so your accusation is one too.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > You voice misrepresentations and diversions, Ratner.
>
> > > > > > > > > Besides, the
>
> > > > > > > > > > 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> > > > > > > > > > thread starter.
>
> > > > > > > > > Naw, we take the broader view.
>
> > > > > > > > > Of course, you don't remember that you started this
>
> > > > > > > > > > thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> > > > > > > > > > you.
>
> > > Virtually no threads are lock-stepped by their headers, much less
> > > those you participate in. In reality you fear the flexiblity and open-
> > > endedness of internet debate.
>
> > Whatever....
>
> You don't engage in it opposite me. You can't handle that.
more nonsense.
>
>
>
>
> > > P.S. An editorial does not prescribe, it suggests.
>
> > > > > > > > > The editorial was stronger than that. And in any event you are
> > > > > > > > > contradicting your line about your personal views in this very post.
>
> > > > > > > > Show the supposed contradiction clearly.
>
> > > > > > > Show a failure, i.e., lack of the contradiction clearly.
>
> > > > > > Oh H, that is just so funny! You have nothing, zilch, and you actually
> > > > > > think you can weasel out with the above! You made my day, thanks ever
> > > > > > so much.
>
> > > > > So neither of is is going to be put to work by the other? That's fine
> > > > > with me.
>
> > > > You are an ass. You make an accusation and when asked to back it up,
> > > > have nothing, and that's fine with you. Here's a newsflash: it's not
> > > > fine with anyone who participates in reality.
>
> > > Reality, some examples:
>
> > > In the interests of the United States, the Israel lobby must be
> > > reined-in and the policies it has heretofore imposed *changed*. We now
> > > have the best opportunity to accomplish that in 40 years. I´m
> > > optimistic. We´ll see.
>
> > The accusation, you friggin senile lush, was of some "contradiction".
> > Did you forget?
>
> How can you deny that the subject immediately above, set by you, is
> "reality" in our context?
H is having fun improvising complete nonsense to try to avoid citing
the "contradiction", as if there is a soul here who needs me to tell
him that.
>
>
> > > In the meantime toying with you is amusing--though the reason that´s
> > > all that´s available from you doesn´t speak well of your intellectual
> > > honesty. Or of the breadth of your education and life experience.
>
> > You think that by typing "toying with you", that you can make anyone
> > forget that you accused me of a contradiction,
>
> I've accused you of lots of things: a filthy sort of arrogance, of
> having no significant life experience, of having a poor and
> insufficient education, of not working for a living, of generating
> awful music and parading it before the public via a High School
> Orchestra, of using a Canadian e-mail account as a sock and then not
> even being able to coordinate it's "personality." I can dredge up more
> if you like.
Hey, whatever floats your boat. when your done, cite the
contradiction.
> I asked you to
>
> > illustrate it, and you are doing your usual tapdance to avoid
> > specifying. Yawn...
>
> I dont' run errands for you. Or don't you recall.
>
Proving an assertion is not running an errand. It is providing
evidence that you are not a liar and that you have control over what
you type. Since you cannot prove it, you must be a liar and you must
not have any control over what you type. Simple.
>
> > And now, H is going to enter blahblah mode, where he thinks he can
> > inundate with stream-of-unconsciousness verbiage to try to distract
> > from the contradiction that has yet to be specified. He actually
> > thinks there is a soul on earth who will read it.
>
> I haven't been posting much lately. The computer is on the fritz and
> we'rein the midst of our 9 day fiesta for the patron saint of the
> village. It's much more fun.
>
Please let us in on who gives a shit.
>
> > > It is a "reality" that our Israel policy has been a disaster. You
> > > could deny it and enter the debate but haven´t because you make the
> > > small-minded mistake of believing your best bet is to attack me
> > > instead of the issues. The fact is you know that if you engage me on
> > > these issues I will defeat you, publicly, and that is exactly what you
> > > and the lobby want to avoid in the overall policy sense.
>
> > > It is reality that the Israel lobby has had a corrupting influence on
> > > American politics and on our Middle East policy in particular. It is
> > > corrupting in the sense that what it enforces is contrary to our
> > > national interests and the price we have been paying has been
> > > horrendous. It also includes in part responsibility in the origins of
> > > three Middle Eastern wars.
>
> > > It has been corrupting in the moral and reputational sense. We have
> > > been paying an awful price for that too. Your pretence of having
> > > refused to read Mearsheimer & Walt (on principle, haha) is nothing but
> > > a scam to avoid having to deal with it in public. The same is true of
> > > your effort to quote Zionist Jewish critics of the book, thus
> > > pretending that conflict of interest is consistent with objectivity.
>
> > > > > > P.S. You were so panicked and intent on figuring out what you could
> > > > > > say that would relieve you from showing the contradiction, you wrote a
> > > > > > sentence that makes no sense.
>
> > > I was most probably half asleep. That´s not consisent with panic.
>
> > for H, asleep is a euphemism for drunk.
>
> Have you had your aids test lately?
>
wow, is that the best you got? Pathetic....
>
> > > > > It wasn't written well. I've fixed it above. Your turn.
>
> > > > Actually, my turn was taken in my last post.
>
> > > Not at all. You didn´t address it. You only address typos.
>
> > > It was contained in the
>
> > > > part of the P.S. you snipped because it was too painful for you to
> > > > contend with. I will paste it here:
>
> > > But where is it, Ratner? Did you forget?
>
> > It's just below now, H. Thanks for not forcing me to paste it again.
>
> But it's not there. All one has to do to deal with crap is delete it.
Like the ostrich, H thinks if it's out of sight, it's out of mind.
Snippy snippy goes poo wittoo H, he can't handle the pain that meanie
drahcir dishes out. poo, poo wittoo H.
Prime Minister Serge Grishenkoff
RBRK
scared," remembers 10-year-old Nujood Ali. "I didn't want to leave my
family and siblings." - At an age when girls in the West still play
with dolls, Nujood found herself married to a man three times her age.
But in her home country of Yemen -- a deeply conservative Middle East
Muslim nation -- this situation isn't uncommon.,,Yemeni lawyer Shada
Nasser had long opposed the practice of early marriage when, in April
2008, she got a chance to do something about it. -
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/26/heroes.shada.nasser/index.html
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people under subjection
molesting goat fuckers and nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** moslem cartoon character
mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and
nikomaks
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
Up your ass mohammad - Elif air ab tizak!!!
in...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or
politic...@googlegroups.com
Achmat.S...@gmail.com
fa...@telkomsa.net
jam...@islamsa.org.za
ds...@mweb.co.za
jami...@lantic.co.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
sanh...@sanha.org.za
help...@sanha.org.za
arah...@gmail.com
islamwa...@googlegroups.com
furti...@gmail.com
ipc...@yebo.co.za
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Prime Minister Serge Grishenkoff
John
So whats the difference between this and what Warren Jeffs and the
fringe LDS church does?
Religious conservatives, child brides, situation not uncommon...Yep.
Warren Jeffs all over.
Prime Minister Serge Grishenkoff
fla...@verizon.net
On 24-Nov-2008, John <dahlgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 7:15 am, RBRK <Sar...@Irani.com> wrote:
> > CNN - Helping child brides break free - "When I got married I was
> > scared," remembers 10-year-old Nujood Ali. "I didn't want to leave my
> > family and siblings." - At an age when girls in the West still play
> > with dolls, Nujood found herself married to a man three times her age.
> > But in her home country of Yemen -- a deeply conservative Middle East
> > Muslim nation -- this situation isn't uncommon.,,Yemeni lawyer Shada
> > Nasser had long opposed the practice of early marriage when, in April
> > 2008, she got a chance to do something about it.
> > -http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/26/heroes.shada.nasser/ind...
>
> So whats the difference between this and what Warren Jeffs and the
> fringe LDS church does?
>
Um, about 3-4 years?
Susan
Prime Minister Serge Grishenkoff
(www.grishenkoff.com)
Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people under subjection
Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people under subjection
and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement
HHW
> On Nov 23, 6:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Let me get this straight. You think Israel should give up the west
> bank because, in your opinion, that's in the american interest. So,
> it's your opinion that israel should act not in her own interest, but
> in america's. Do I have that right, H?
If they want additional support from the US, you're getting close.
>
> Because it is American policy.
>
> I see, it is american policy that israel should give up the west bank.
> Uh-huh....
Indeed it is American policy, with appropriate swaps of real estate.
We have for decades formally described continued Israeli efforts to
grab land in the West Bank "an obstacle to peace."
>
> > Because it's the only way an enduring settlement may be reached.
>
> I hope that's not true, but if it is, well, ok.
Translation: You hope Israel will keep the West Bank irrespective of
it's impact on the US. It's called conflict of interest, Richard.
>
> > Because America needs a settlement of this filthy stand-off.
>
> Irrelevant.
Where's your argument here, Ratner? What's your basis for what in
essence is a claim that America should continue to be forced to
support Israeli aggression and crimes? That is the reality whether you
like it or not.
>
> Because
>
> > Israel simply *wants* the West Bank. It doesn't need it.
>
> It needs it a hell of a lot more than america needed texas.
We "democratic" whites stole Texas in the early nineteenth century
because we *wanted it* and that was still the way such things were
done. National security was never an issue. It was our "manifest
destiny", something very akin to Zionism but without all the
disingenuous crap like compensating Zionists for the crimes of a third
party on another continent sixty years earlier. We did it without
corrupting another country's institutions so that it could be forced
to pay the greater price in blood and treasure. Yet even that long ago
it was so obviously morally bankrupt that even a butcher of hundreds
of thousands, Robert E. Lee, was disgusted.
Separate the United States from the problems associated with Israel's
refusal to give up the fruits of its aggression in 1967 and guess
what? I'll be perfectly content that we watch at a distance and wring
our hands once in a while. Get the Israel lobby out of our legislature
and we'll be perfectly content to shape our policies in the Middle
East all by ourselves, thank you very much.
> And because
>
> > forcing her to withdraw will be a part of recovering autonomy over our
> > Middle Eastern foreign policy.
>
> The above is silly.
Why is that, Ratner? Because you believe that Israel lobby doesn't
exist or that it is impotent? Or are you still feigning ignorance of
American politics?
>
> > Arabs had a chance to abide
>
> > > by the green line, and they chose not to.
>
> > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > chose not to.
>
> Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
Refute what I say, but bring a nice lunch. I have read the history.
> > As I have said many times,
>
> > > israel needs to decide on her borders, make the needed annexations,
> > > and terminate all settlements outside those borders. Simple.
>
> > Simple minded. It presumes that Israel will impose her will by fiat.
> > The only way she can hope to accomplish that over the long run is with
> > American backing, unlimited and unending American backing regardless
> > of the cost.
>
> Arabs lost the wb in a war of aggression. Tough luck.
The relevant tough luck is being experienced by Americans. I can
explain it, just as Mearsheimer & Walt have been able to do so. You
can attack me all day long but you'll never be able to go back to the
bullshit about demon Arabs and peace loving Israelis.
>
> > > > You have never done that.
>
> > > Why would any objective person do that?
Speak only of yourself. It's because I'm your master when it comes
twentieth century history and I no longer tolerate taboos designed to
prevent criticism of Israeli policy or to obscure the American
interest. That obviously filthy Israeli policy is one of the deepest
roots of America's "time on the cross" in the Middle East.
> > > You want Israel to coninue to cream the aid
>
> > > "coninue to cream the aid"?? is that the tequila talking?
>
> > You know what it means. Try unearned largess.
>
> I figured "coninue" is continue. "cream the aid" is anyone's guess.
Try coerced, extorted largess and you won't have to guess.
>
> > > > and protection benefits which are the result of lobby corruption of
> > > > the political process and continue to stiff us. You are a supporter of
> > > > the lobby, a dishonest supporter of the lobby.
>
> > > Can't you just picture H drooling over his keyboard, sipping between
> > > words?
>
> > Can you just picture the mess you'll be in if you attempt to respond?
> > Why, yes you can. That's why you almost never do.
>
> Respond to your silly lobby accusation? Give me a break. your whole
> lobby shtick is a sham, so your accusation is one too.
An anti-Semitic sham, right? It's taboo to speak of Jewish money and
the political power it generates here in the US to oppress our
legislature. We Americans must pretend to like the lobby generated
policy in the Middle East. The alternative is represented by men like
you.
You may think this tangential but it really isn't. To what do
attribute these events in Mumbai as the relate to Jews?
Mumbai Jewish Center Hostages Die; 200 Others Freed (Update3)
Email | Print | A A A
By Vipin Nair, Chitra Somayaji and Anil Varma
Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Five hostages and two terrorists died at a
Jewish center in Mumbai that was stormed by Indian commandos, who also
freed more than 200 people from the city’s five-star Oberoi-Trident
hotel, officials said.
“There were two gunmen and five hostages” lying dead in Nariman House,
site of the Chabad-Lubavitch Center, Motti Bukchin, a spokesman for
the Israeli emergency-response organization Zaka, said today in a
telephone interview from Jerusalem. A New York-raised orthodox rabbi
and his wife were killed. Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, and his wife
Rivka, 28, were confirmed dead in the attacks, the movement said on
its Web site.
The assault on the center began when at least eight soldiers slid down
ropes from a helicopter above the building and started a long gunfight
with the attackers. The siege entered its final phase when a
controlled explosion breached a wall at the house, Times Now said.
Two large explosions were heard today at the luxury Taj Mahal Palace
and Tower Hotel, where six hostages were freed while a fire broke out
at the hotel after a further explosion. One member of the National
Security Guard was killed at the hotel, which is the scene of the last
remaining standoff with the terrorists. Six terrorists are still in
the hotel, NDTV said.
Deccan Mujahedeen
More than 150 people were killed in the attacks, the Associated Press
said. The Indian government said at least 370 were injured in more
than 48 hours of violence as terrorists moved through India’s
financial hub, targeting the Jewish center, the Oberoi-Trident hotel
complex, the Taj in the center of the city, a railroad station and a
restaurant.
A little-known Islamist group, the Deccan Mujahedeen, claimed
responsibility for the coordinated shootings and explosions across the
western coastal city, Home Ministry official M.L. Kumawat said.
The targeting of Westerners marks a shift in tactics for Islamic
militants in India who have attacked Hindu targets in the past, as
they strike at the international links that have helped the country’s
economy grow at 9 percent or more for each of the past three years.
Elements in neighboring Pakistan are responsible for the attacks, the
Press Trust of India cited External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee
as saying.
Arrived in 2003
The Jewish center where the rabbi and his wife died is part of a
global effort by the Brooklyn-based orthodox Jewish group to spread
their faith among Jews living and traveling abroad.
The Chabad-Lubavitch movement has more than 4,000 rabbis who serve
with their wives in more than 3,300 centers in 72 countries and in
U.S. cities and college campuses.
Holtzberg, who arrived in Mumbai in 2003, ran the Chabad mission there
with his wife from the five-story Chabad House in the city’s Colaba
market district.
There are fewer than 5,000 Jews remaining in India, according to the
Joint Distribution Committee, a New-York based Jewish aid
organization.
Before the assault on the Jewish center, nine terrorists had been
killed and one, a Pakistani, was arrested, said R.R. Patil, deputy
chief minister of the state of Maharashtra. The attackers arrived in
Mumbai by sea, Patil told reporters.
Highly Motivated
“We came up against highly motivated terrorists,” Vice- Admiral J.S.
Bedi, whose commandos led the assault against the militants, said in
televised comments. He showed pictures of recovered hand grenades,
tear gas shells and AK47 ammunition.
India will “go after” individuals and organizations behind the
attacks, which were “well-planned with external linkages,” Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh said in a televised address, without
identifying nations.
U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it is too early to tell whether
Britons were involved. “I would not want to be drawn into early
conclusions about this,” Brown said in an interview with Sky News.
“When you have terrorists operating in one country they may be getting
support from another country or coming from another country.”
Three Germans, two Australians, two Americans, two Frenchmen, a
Briton, a Japanese and an Italian were among the dead, authorities
said. An American man and his teenage daughter died when a cafe was
attacked. They were identified as Alan and Naomi Scherr, the
Synchronicity Foundation of Virginia said. The two Americans were with
a delegation from the foundation, according to the spiritual group’s
Web site.
Bodies at Oberoi
A Canadian was also killed, Agence France-Presse reported. Twenty-two
foreign nationals were among those injured in the attacks, according
to Mumbai police.
The attacks, the worst in the city since train blasts in July 2006
killed 187 people and injured more than 800, began with explosions and
gunfire ringing out across the city late in the evening of Nov. 26.
At the Oberoi, where 24 bodies were recovered, rescued guests
clutching passports and bags were loaded into buses and cars by
authorities as they fled the hotel. The Oberoi-Trident complex was
cleared of assailants today, the National Security Guard said. Two
terrorists were killed at the Trident, where guests were receiving
first aid.
“This was a very planned and orchestrated attack, suggesting a more
professional terrorist hand at work,” said Rory Medcalf, the Sydney-
based Lowy Institute’s program director for international security.
Alignment With West
Extremists within India are concerned about the government’s “closer
alignment with the West,” Medcalf, a former official at the Australian
High Commission in New Delhi, said in an interview with Bloomberg
Television.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was keeping President George W.
Bush up to date on the situation in Mumbai, the White House said.
Embassy personnel were visiting hospitals and hotels to locate and
identify any injured U.S. citizens.
Multiple attacks have rocked cities in majority-Hindu India with bombs
planted in markets, theaters and near mosques this year leaving more
than 300 people dead.
Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari said “non-state actors” were
forcing their agenda on India and Pakistan and that the two
governments must not allow them to succeed. He said he will send the
head of Pakistani intelligence to India for the first time to counter
claims that the militants who carried out the Mumbai attackers are
linked to his country.
Pakistan and India
Pakistan’s “government will cooperate with India in exposing and
apprehending the culprits and the masterminds behind” the Mumbai
terrorist attacks, according to a statement by the president’s office,
citing Zardari’s phone conversation today with Singh.
The attacks in Mumbai show a militant movement among Indian- born
followers of Islam is aligning its campaign with those from majority-
Muslim countries, while seeking to hit economic interests, B. Raman,
the former counter-terrorism director of India’s intelligence agency,
said in a telephone interview.
“It is unfair to blame Pakistan or Pakistanis for these acts of
terrorism even before an investigation is undertaken,” Pakistan’s
ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, said in a statement. “Instead
of scoring political points at the expense of a neighboring country
that is itself a victim of terrorism, it is time for India’s leaders
to work together with Pakistan’s elected leaders in putting up a joint
front against terrorism.”
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi was to meet with Singh today to
personally offer Pakistan’s condolences for the Mumbai attacks, the
official Associated Press of Pakistan reported.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > You voice misrepresentations and diversions, Ratner.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Besides, the
>
> > > > > > > > > > > 'subject at hand' of a thread is by definition determined by the
> > > > > > > > > > > thread starter.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Naw, we take the broader view.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Of course, you don't remember that you started this
>
> > > > > > > > > > > thread, nor what it was about. We can't expect more from the likes of
> > > > > > > > > > > you.
>
> > > > Virtually no threads are lock-stepped by their headers, much less
> > > > those you participate in. In reality you fear the flexiblity and open-
> > > > endedness of internet debate.
>
> > > Whatever....
>
> > You don't engage in it opposite me. You can't handle that.
>
> more nonsense.
It's a reasonable conclusion from the fact that you scrupulously avoid
it.
Politics, international relations, Americans role in the world. Suck
it up, Ratner. You represent naught but frivolity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > In the meantime toying with you is amusing--though the reason that´s
> > > > all that´s available from you doesn´t speak well of your intellectual
> > > > honesty. Or of the breadth of your education and life experience.
>
> > > You think that by typing "toying with you", that you can make anyone
> > > forget that you accused me of a contradiction,
>
> > I've accused you of lots of things: a filthy sort of arrogance, of
> > having no significant life experience, of having a poor and
> > insufficient education, of not working for a living, of generating
> > awful music and parading it before the public via a High School
> > Orchestra, of using a Canadian e-mail account as a sock and then not
> > even being able to coordinate it's "personality." I can dredge up more
> > if you like.
>
> Hey, whatever floats your boat. when your done, cite the
> contradiction.> I asked you to
>
> > > illustrate it, and you are doing your usual tapdance to avoid
> > > specifying. Yawn...
>
> > I dont' run errands for you. Or don't you recall.
>
> Proving an assertion is not running an errand. It is providing
> evidence that you are not a liar and that you have control over what
> you type. Since you cannot prove it, you must be a liar and you must
> not have any control over what you type. Simple.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > And now, H is going to enter blahblah mode, where he thinks he can
> > > inundate with
You're not inundated. You simply can't bring yourself to deal with any
of it on the merits. You can't bear the thought of being forced into a
corner almost immediately, but most you can't bear the thought of
giving me a platform for the ideas which animate what I write here.
What animates you is pure filth.
drahcir
<snip for focus>
>
> > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > chose not to.
>
> > Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
>
> Refute what I say, but bring a nice lunch. I have read the history.
You have read A history - but it is worthless.
On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
in blue. Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
Desperate to find a haven for the remnants of European Jewry after the
Holocaust, the Jewish population accepted the plan which accorded them
a diminished state. The Arabs, intent on preventing any Jewish entity
in Palestine, rejected it.
While the Jewish leadership and population in Palestine accepted
partition, all of the Arab members states of the UN - Egypt, Iraq,
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen- voted against it. Upon the
resolution's adoption, the Arab delegates declared partition invalid:
The New York Times, Nov. 30, 1947. Within two days, the Arab
governments declared their opposition to partition: The New York
Times, Dec. 1, 2, 1947.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/part.html
Partition - The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine
(UNSCOP) recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and
a Jewish state. The commission called for Jerusalem to be put under
international administration The UN General Assembly adopted this plan
on Nov. 29, 1947 as UN Resolution (GA 181), owing to support of both
the US and the Soviet Union, and in particular, the personal support
of US President Harry S. Truman. Many factors contributed to Truman's
decision to support partition, including domestic politics and intense
Zionist lobbying, no doubt. Truman wrote in his diary, however, "I
think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to
do what I think is right and let them all go to hell."
The Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it.
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
The Zionists, then led by David Ben-Gurion, accepted this partition
plan, even though they had always dreamed of controlling all of
western Palestine and Jerusalem. The Palestinian Arabs and the
surrounding Arab states rejected the partition proposal. They felt
that Palestine was all theirs, that the Jews were a foreign implant
foisted upon them, and that they had the strength to drive them out.
Just before the British completed their withdrawal on May 14, 1948,
the Zionists declared their own state, and the next day the
Palestinians, aided by the armies of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon,
Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, launched a war to prevent Jewish independence
and to secure control of all of western Palestine."
- Thomas L. Friedman
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=475
Would you like a few more, or a few more hundred proofs that you are
simply a know-nothing, loudmouth antisemitic asshole? There's plenty
more bullshit for me to trounce lower down, but to be honest, I've
done my work here and don't feel like wading through more of your
intolerably verbose crap.
drahcir
>
> > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > chose not to.
what he really meant was that the Jews (of course there was no Israel
in 1947) accepted the terms of the 1947 partition?
Ben Cramer
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34fe4351-22f7-43f5...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 4:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
>
> > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > chose not to.
>
> > Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
>
>> Refute what I say, but bring a nice lunch. I have read the history.
>>You have read A history - but it is worthless.
>On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
>with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
>an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
>in blue. Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
>Desperate to find a haven for the remnants of European Jewry after the
>Holocaust, the Jewish population accepted the plan which accorded them
>a diminished state.
Wasn't enough for the yids. They wanted the lot so swiped all they could.
>The Arabs, intent on preventing any Jewish entity
>in Palestine, rejected it.
As they should have. What people in their right mind would give their
country away to foreigners? None that I can think of.
Why didn't the hebes consider the MacDonald plan of 1939 RATner? The plan
which would have given Palestine independence as a single state.
fla...@verizon.net
What he really meant was to spread more lies about & hatred for Israel &
Jews.
Susan
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T6nYk.1854$us6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Jews and konverts manage to do enough of that without external assistance,
cohen.
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34fe4351-22f7-43f5...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 4:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip for focus>
>
>
>
> > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > chose not to.
>
> > > Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
>
> >> Refute what I say, but bring a nice lunch. I have read the history.
> >>You have read A history - but it is worthless.
> >On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
> >with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
> >an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
> >in blue. Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
> >Desperate to find a haven for the remnants of European Jewry after the
> >Holocaust, the Jewish population accepted the plan which accorded them
> >a diminished state.
>
> Wasn't enough for the yids. They wanted the lot so swiped all they could.
>
> >The Arabs, intent on preventing any Jewish entity
> >in Palestine, rejected it.
>
> As they should have. What people in their right mind would give their
> country away to foreigners?
Psst! Hey Ben, howvya been? I had to switch my firefox profile and
lost my killfile. Anyway, hope you're well (or, in benspeak, "hope
your well"). Anyway, there are a few problems with your sentence:
> What people in their right mind would give their
> country away to foreigners?
First, Palestine was not a country in 1947. Second, it wasn't
"theirs", it was a British Mandate - before that it was part of the
Ottoman Empire, and had been since 1516. I think you should brush up
on your history before posting - that way, any newcomers here might
have to read 2 or 3 of your posts before they realize what an ass you
are.
None that I can think of.
>
> Why didn't the hebes consider the MacDonald plan of 1939 RATner? The plan
> which would have given Palestine independence as a single state.
I presume by "macdonald plan" you are referring to what normal people
call the White Paper. Here, you can educate yourself a bit about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939
If after reading the article you still don't understand why it was
rejected by both arabs and jews, ask a question politely. This is of
course besides the fact that it is irrelevant. The UN approved the
partition plan - that's all that matters.
drahcir
Ya think? Honestly, I think he's just an ignoramus who's comprehension
of Israel is about as accurate as mine of nematodes. the difference is
that i don't go around blabbing about nematodes.
Ben Cramer
On Nov 29, 7:11 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>First, Palestine was not a country in 1947. Second, it wasn't
>"theirs", it was a British Mandate -
It was more "theirs" than it was the hebes, RATner.
THAT is the point, fuckstain.
You're music sucks.
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:000c7452-6028-486c...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 7:11 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
>
> > "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >First, Palestine was not a country in 1947. Second, it wasn't
> >"theirs", it was a British Mandate -
>
> It was more "theirs" than it was the hebes, RATner.
>
> THAT is the point, fuckstain.
if that is the point, then there is no point. it's just your opinion,
and an opinion is only worth as much as its owner - in your case,
zero.
>
> You're music sucks.
I know that you're doing your absolute best to be hurtful, but truly,
think about it - you can't possibly be so dense as to not understand
that I hold you in very low regard. If i thought there was one chance
in a million that you actually could tell a beethoven symphony from
michael jackson, i'd be somewhat concerned. But you are that special
type of ignoramus - an igno-generalist - you are profoundly ignorant
of a broad range of topics, as is evidenced every time you post (other
than your silly one-liners, of course). That range is so broad that
one doesn't need to stretch one's imagination to understand that it no
doubt applies to music. If you'd care to dispute that, I'm all ears.
Why don't you prove yourself by expounding on the stylistic
differences between, say, Schumann and Mendelssohn?
Ben Cramer
On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:000c7452-6028-486c...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 7:11 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
>
> > "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >First, Palestine was not a country in 1947. Second, it wasn't
> >"theirs", it was a British Mandate -
>
> It was more "theirs" than it was the hebes, RATner.
>
> THAT is the point, fuckstain.
>if that is the point, then there is no point. it's just your opinion,
No. It's definitely a point. A point known by all but the stinky yids and
their arsewipes.
>and an opinion is only worth as much as its owner - in your case,
>zero.
>
>> You're music sucks.
>I know that you're doing your absolute best to be hurtful, but truly,
>think about it -
Hurtful? Not at all. Honest appraisal of your naive, pathetic music,
RATner.
Ben Cramer
On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>if that is the point, then there is no point. it's just your opinion,
>and an opinion is only worth as much as its owner - in your case,
>zero.
>>
>> You're music sucks.
>I know that you're doing your absolute best to be hurtful, but truly,
>think about it - you can't possibly be so dense as to not understand
>that I hold you in very low regard. If i thought there was one chance
>in a million that you actually could tell a beethoven symphony from
>michael jackson, i'd be somewhat concerned. But you are that special
>type of ignoramus - an igno-generalist - you are profoundly ignorant
>of a broad range of topics, as is evidenced every time you post (other
>than your silly one-liners, of course). That range is so broad that
>one doesn't need to stretch one's imagination to understand that it no
>doubt applies to music. If you'd care to dispute that, I'm all ears.
>Why don't you prove yourself by expounding on the stylistic
>differences between, say, Schumann and Mendelssohn?
Oh dear.
I seem to have struck a nerve.
Poor little Dickie RATner is all upset, having to resort to the pathetic
"supremacism" his lot are known for, ad hom attack, delusion and downright
lies in a pathetic attempt to kill the messenger.
If you're going to make your music public, RATner, you must expect critical
comment.
Question:
Why have you now decided to recommence communication with me? Am I the only
person responding to your neurotic escapades into fantasy land?
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2f6cb5ec-21fa-4f6f...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
>
> > "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:000c7452-6028-486c...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 29, 7:11 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
>
> > > "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >First, Palestine was not a country in 1947. Second, it wasn't
> > >"theirs", it was a British Mandate -
>
> > It was more "theirs" than it was the hebes, RATner.
>
> > THAT is the point, fuckstain.
> >if that is the point, then there is no point. it's just your opinion,
>
> No. It's definitely a point. A point known by all but the stinky yids and
> their arsewipes.
>
> >and an opinion is only worth as much as its owner - in your case,
> >zero.
>
> >> You're music sucks.
> >I know that you're doing your absolute best to be hurtful, but truly,
> >think about it -
>
> Hurtful? Not at all. Honest appraisal of your naive, pathetic music,
> RATner.
Snippy snippy goes poor ben when a post is too painful for him to
bear.
Ben Cramer
Enough with your delusions and lies already, RATner.
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2f6cb5ec-21fa-4f6f...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >if that is the point, then there is no point. it's just your opinion,
> >and an opinion is only worth as much as its owner - in your case,
> >zero.
>
> >> You're music sucks.
> >I know that you're doing your absolute best to be hurtful, but truly,
> >think about it - you can't possibly be so dense as to not understand
> >that I hold you in very low regard. If i thought there was one chance
> >in a million that you actually could tell a beethoven symphony from
> >michael jackson, i'd be somewhat concerned. But you are that special
> >type of ignoramus - an igno-generalist - you are profoundly ignorant
> >of a broad range of topics, as is evidenced every time you post (other
> >than your silly one-liners, of course). That range is so broad that
> >one doesn't need to stretch one's imagination to understand that it no
> >doubt applies to music. If you'd care to dispute that, I'm all ears.
> >Why don't you prove yourself by expounding on the stylistic
> >differences between, say, Schumann and Mendelssohn?
>
> Oh dear.
>
> I seem to have struck a nerve.
Hmm, like HHW and most muslim posters, you seem to need to masturbate
in newsgroups to feel fulfilled. Somehow seeing your desired result in
print, even if it's by your own hand, does the trick for you. Hey,
whatever floats your boat....
>
> Poor little Dickie RATner is all upset, having to resort to the pathetic
> "supremacism" his lot are known for, ad hom attack, delusion and downright
> lies in a pathetic attempt to kill the messenger.
I have simply stated that you are an ignoramus, and that that no doubt
applies to music as it does most everything else. I have given you an
opportunity to prove me wrong. You have not taken that opportunity,
which can only mean that i am correct. I have no reason at all to kill
the messenger, since that messenger is an admitted ignoramus - that in
fact would ruin all my fun. Oh, before I forget, please do specify the
"downright lies".
>
> If you're going to make your music public, RATner, you must expect critical
> comment.
So, you think "you're music sucks" is "critical comment" (he means
"commentary")? What can I say? You, who can't even distinguish a
possessive pronoun from a contraction (it's " *your* music sucks", you
friggin imbecile), something any fourth grader can do, presume that
you are capable of critical commentary on my or anyone else's music?
Ben, for the love of mike, do whatever you have to to get a grip.
>
> Question:
>
> Why have you now decided to recommence communication with me?
As I previously stated, and apparently your defective neurons have
already forgotten, I no longer have a google killfile. I thought it
would be fun to play with you for awhile. Aren't you having fun, ben?
Am I the only
> person responding to your neurotic escapades into fantasy land?
Are you honestly not capable of determining the answer to that for
yourself? Hmmm, you are perhaps in worse shape than ever, if that's
possible.
Ben Cramer
On Nov 29, 11:00 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Poor little Dickie RATner is all upset, having to resort to the pathetic
>> "supremacism" his lot are known for, ad hom attack, delusion and
>> downright
>> lies in a pathetic attempt to kill the messenger.
>I have simply stated that you are an ignoramus, and that that no doubt
>applies to music as it does most everything else. I have given you an
>opportunity to prove me wrong. You have not taken that opportunity,
>which can only mean that i am correct. I have no reason at all to kill
>the messenger, since that messenger is an admitted ignoramus - that in
>fact would ruin all my fun. Oh, before I forget, please do specify the
>"downright lies".
The above, rambling, nonsensical, desperate shite from you is riddled with
lies, RATner.
I expect nothing better or more from you, sunschein.
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9b1b557e-5bd0-4b10...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 11:00 pm, "Ben Cramer" <ben'salw...@around.com> wrote:
>
> > "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Poor little Dickie RATner is all upset, having to resort to the pathetic
> >> "supremacism" his lot are known for, ad hom attack, delusion and
> >> downright
> >> lies in a pathetic attempt to kill the messenger.
> >I have simply stated that you are an ignoramus, and that that no doubt
> >applies to music as it does most everything else. I have given you an
> >opportunity to prove me wrong. You have not taken that opportunity,
> >which can only mean that i am correct. I have no reason at all to kill
> >the messenger, since that messenger is an admitted ignoramus - that in
> >fact would ruin all my fun. Oh, before I forget, please do specify the
> >"downright lies".
>
> The above, rambling, nonsensical, desperate shite from you is riddled with
> lies, RATner.
enumerate them.
HHW
> On Nov 28, 4:28 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:02 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 4:28 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip for focus>
>
>
>
> > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > chose not to.
>
> > > Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
>
> > Refute what I say, but bring a nice lunch. I have read the history.
>
> You have read A history - but it is worthless.
I've read a half dozen, Ratner, recently, plus lots of stuff in the
journals. I've been following these issues for forty years in the
press and periodicals, and what do you try to parrot? What else? An
Israeli hasbara operation specializing in "Zionist education"-- based
in Israel. Zionist education is ideological education, the most
partizan pedagogy yet devised by mankind short of its religious cousin
which fueled things like Crusades and the colonization of Latin
America.
>
> On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
> with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
> an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
> in blue.
Indeed and it was substantially more than half of Palestine and
contained both of its deep water ports.
Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
Which the Jews famously "made bloom". A very fruitful desert indeed.
In fact a strong argument can be made that almost all of Palestine was
desert or near desert. If a quarter of the land allocated to the Jews
was arable, there could not have been a much greater proportion
allocated to the Arabs from their mere 45% of the whole.
The UN also took into account the existing population patterns and
densities and attempted in good faith to do justice to both the
communities without creating or exacerbating civil war. This was to no
avail as it was inconsistent with the concrete plans for expansion
prepared by the Palestinian Jews long before 1948.
> Desperate to find a haven for the remnants of European Jewry after the
> Holocaust, the Jewish population accepted the plan which accorded them
> a diminished state.
Diminished, indeed. This is Ideological balderdash. Fifty-five percent
of Palestine, a quarter of which was arable, including the country's
two blue water ports, can not by any rational calculation be
considered "diminished". The underlying premise here is ideological,
i.e., that Jews, though a distinct minority and most of them recently
arrived Europeans, had a *right and entitlement* superior to Arabs. If
what they were given AND ACCEPTED (while deviously preparing to take
most of the rest by force and ethnic cleansing) was diminished, it was
so only in their own minds. They wanted it all. And the Zionist
lunatic fringe want it all to this day. And they want it all despite
the fact that the burdens incident to that desire are being
disproportionately borne by the other 97% of Americans.
The Arabs, intent on preventing any Jewish entity
> in Palestine, rejected it.
The Arabs IN PALESTINE at the time had no organized national
leadership, no competent government. They were riven by clan
allegiances and rivalries. If they can be blamed for hostility to
Jews, the reverse is just as true. The rational goal was then and is
now to craft a lasting compromise based on simple equity, not the
imposition of facts on the ground determined by greater military
power.
The UN tried and failed. It's failure was guaranteed by the Zionists'
ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine which began well *before* the
declaration of independence of Israel in May of 1948. The reason for
the invasion of Palestine that May by various Arab forces was not so
much the partition, as their governments were not then keen on
fighting a war on behalf of the Palestinians, but that very ongoing
ethnic cleansing. Absent that, and based solely on the 1947 Partition,
it is extremely doubtful they would have intervened in Palestine. They
did it primarily in response to the fact that their countries were
being flooded by hundreds of thousands of uprooted refugees whose
homes were being demolished and mined so that they could never return.
They did it because this criminal aggression had created an uproar in
the Arab street.
> While the Jewish leadership and population in Palestine accepted
> partition, all of the Arab members states of the UN - Egypt, Iraq,
> Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen- voted against it.
Which was not at all unnatural given all the other European
impositions on the Middle East in that era coming forward from the
collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Upon the
> resolution's adoption, the Arab delegates declared partition invalid:
> The New York Times, Nov. 30, 1947. Within two days, the Arab
> governments declared their opposition to partition: The New York
> Times, Dec. 1, 2, 1947.
Opposition to a political decision is not a declaration of war.
>
> http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/part.html
>
> Partition - The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine
> (UNSCOP) recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and
> a Jewish state. The commission called for Jerusalem to be put under
> international administration The UN General Assembly adopted this plan
> on Nov. 29, 1947 as UN Resolution (GA 181), owing to support of both
> the US and the Soviet Union, and in particular, the personal support
> of US President Harry S. Truman. Many factors contributed to Truman's
> decision to support partition, including domestic politics and intense
> Zionist lobbying, no doubt. Truman wrote in his diary, however, "I
> think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to
> do what I think is right and let them all go to hell."
And was he not right at least in principle given given the great
antagonisms involved. After all, the West's interest in a compromise
solution made sense to most everyone but the participants. And
American policy has no more changed than has the Zionist goal of
taking all of Palestine.
>
> The Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it.
The Jews *pretended* to accept it while objectively continuing to
violate it and planning at the same time to take by force lands
allocated to Palestinian Arabs. Not even Richard Ratner's summoning up
of Israeli Zionist propaganda can solve this contradiction.
> http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
>
> The Zionists, then led by David Ben-Gurion, accepted this partition
> plan, even though they had always dreamed of controlling all of
> western Palestine and Jerusalem.
Not even reasonably candid. "Had dreamed?" They gave up no dreams or,
better said, detailed top secret plans. They were at that very moment
expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes,
thousands of them from the area to be given the Arabs under the League
plan. In the assignment of blame one must look at what they did, not
what they were allegedly dreaming about---or falsely claiming superior
rights to.
The Palestinian Arabs and the
> surrounding Arab states rejected the partition proposal. They felt
> that Palestine was all theirs,
Just as the Jews affected to "feel"?
that the Jews were a foreign implant
> foisted upon them,
And was that not true? Were they not Europeans? Had they not been
Europeans for two millennia? Were not these Europeans driving them
from their homes? Was not their "right" to all of Palestine
ideological?
and that they had the strength to drive them out.
Ahhh, calculations about might making right. We still hear that today
don't we Ariadne? We "hear" it as the underlying premise of the
Professor writing on the Harvard web site in which we are both
interested.
> Just before the British completed their withdrawal on May 14, 1948,
> the Zionists declared their own state, and the next day the
> Palestinians, aided by the armies of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon,
> Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, launched a war to prevent Jewish independence
> and to secure control of all of western Palestine."
> - Thomas L. Friedman
>
> http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=475
Yes, yes, Tom Friedman. A very good guy when his conflict of interest
isn't interfering with his journalistic principles.
> Would you like a few more, or a few more hundred proofs that you are
> simply a know-nothing, loudmouth antisemitic asshole? There's plenty
> more bullshit for me to trounce lower down, but to be honest, I've
> done my work here and don't feel like wading through more of your
> intolerably verbose crap.
On edge, Ratner? Panties in a knot? Can't deal with old "one-book-
Hunter" without simply quoting a Zionist source and then pretending
some sort of foul triumphalism? Incapable of thinking and writing
about the history involved on your own? How sad to be so violently
committed yet so incompetent.
> > > > As I have said many times,
>
> > > > > israel needs to decide on her borders, make the needed annexations,
> > > > > and terminate all settlements outside those borders. Simple.
>
> > > > Simple minded. It presumes that Israel will impose her will by fiat.
> > > > The only way she can hope to accomplish that over the long run is with
> > > > American backing, unlimited and unending American backing regardless
> > > > of the cost.
What? Don't want to talk about this in the open? You're a weakling,
Ratner.
> > > Arabs lost the wb in a war of aggression. Tough luck.
In 1948 the Arabs lost a defensive battle in a war against the
Palestinian people which has continued from 1947 to the present. I
believe that It was a gross mistake on the part of the Jews to have
created the situation leading to the war through the long-planned
ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The effects of that avarice for someone
else's land, regardless of earlier events in Europe, grow worse year
by year. We Americans are carrying the heaviest burden. Why should we
do that?
> > The relevant tough luck is being experienced by Americans. I can
> > explain it, just as Mearsheimer & Walt have been able to do so. You
> > can attack me all day long but you'll never be able to go back to the
> > bullshit about demon Arabs and peace loving Israelis.
No reply, Richard? You can't deny things are changing. I'm symbolic of
it. The propaganda and disinformation you shill for are being
remorselessly dismantled. The very atmosphere is changing. The era
when Americans could artificially be made so sensitive about offending
Zionists by opposing their politics is nearly over. Exposing filthy
impositions such as you symbolize has almost become a patriotic parlor
sport in thousands of perfectly respectable American homes. People now
know that it is perfectly fine and also easy to distinguish between
anti-Semitic racism and an a natural interest in the well-being of our
country. The inhibitions are diminishing rapidly. I meet almost no
Americans who buy into it in private anymore and millions are now
speaking up where very few did a generation ago. Go ahead, tell us
that it's nothing but continuing racial discrimination. Tell us that
the wars don't matter and that your Zionist contribution to our
collapsing economy is imaginary, mere anti-Semitism. Indeed, an aspect
of the "new anti-Semitism" which has appeared on the horizon most
every time Israel seemed to be coming under new criticism for its
beastliness on the West Bank or in the prisons containing thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children too.
>
> > > > > > You have never done that.
>
> > > > > Why would any objective person do that?
>
> > Speak only of yourself. It's because I'm your master when it comes
> > twentieth century history and I no longer tolerate taboos designed to
> > prevent criticism of Israeli policy or to obscure the American
> > interest. That obviously filthy Israeli policy is one of the deepest
> > roots of America's "time on the cross" in the Middle East.
You can't deny it. You don't even attempt to do so. You know I'm
waiting for you to do so. Stand ready to hand over that lunch.
> > > > > You want Israel to coninue to cream the aid
>
> > > > > "coninue to cream the aid"?? is that the tequila talking?
>
> > > > You know what it means. Try unearned largess.
>
> > > I figured "coninue" is continue. "cream the aid" is anyone's guess.
>
> > Try coerced, extorted largess and you won't have to guess.
>
> > > > > > and protection benefits which are the result of lobby corruption of
> > > > > > the political process and continue to stiff us. You are a supporter of
> > > > > > the lobby, a dishonest supporter of the lobby.
>
> > > > > Can't you just picture H drooling over his keyboard, sipping between
> > > > > words?
>
> > > > Can you just picture the mess you'll be in if you attempt to respond?
> > > > Why, yes you can. That's why you almost never do.
>
> > > Respond to your silly lobby accusation? Give me a break. your whole
> > > lobby shtick is a sham, so your accusation is one too.
>
> > An anti-Semitic sham, right? It's taboo to speak of Jewish money and
> > the political power it generates here in the US to oppress our
> > legislature. We Americans must pretend to like the lobby generated
> > policy in the Middle East. The alternative is represented by men like
> > you.
I face you straight-on, Ratner. You can't respond either on the
intellectual or moral level.
> ...
>
> read more »
Ha ha. You no longer have the chutzpah to claim that what we saw acted
out in Mumbai is simply an aspect of global anti-Semitism.
drahcir
> On Nov 29, 3:02 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 4:28 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 3:02 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 4:28 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip for focus>
>
> > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > chose not to.
>
> > > > Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
>
> > > Refute what I say, but bring a nice lunch. I have read the history.
>
> > You have read A history - but it is worthless.
>
> I've read a half dozen, Ratner,
This is great! Now we are going to witness yet another episode of HHW
dancing with the stars. In tonight's segment, H will try to dance
around the fact that he said
> > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > chose not to.
which of course is absurd. let's see the fancy footwork below!
recently, plus lots of stuff in the
> journals. I've been following these issues for forty years in the
> press and periodicals, and what do you try to parrot? What else? An
> Israeli hasbara operation specializing in "Zionist education"-- based
> in Israel. Zionist education is ideological education, the most
> partizan pedagogy yet devised by mankind short of its religious cousin
> which fueled things like Crusades and the colonization of Latin
> America.
notice not word one about 1947. Suddenly we are hearing about H's
thoughts on topics as far-flung as hasbara and zionist education
including, hehe, "partizan pedagogy", the Crusades, and Latin
America!!
>
>
> > On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
> > with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
> > an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
> > in blue.
>
> Indeed and it was substantially more than half of Palestine and
> contained both of its deep water ports.
LOL! the sentence below tells the story:
>
> Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
>
> Which the Jews famously "made bloom".
Yes, so?
A very fruitful desert indeed.
What are you saying, moron? that it would have been better to leave
the negev virtually uninhabited? Spoken like a true muslim.
> In fact a strong argument can be made that almost all of Palestine was
> desert or near desert. If a quarter of the land allocated to the Jews
> was arable, there could not have been a much greater proportion
> allocated to the Arabs from their mere 45% of the whole.
completely, utterly illogical. does your puny brain actually think the
immediately arabble portion of arab land is DETERMINED by the
immediately arable portion of jewish land? How does that happen - is
it some psychic force where some land speaks to other land? The negev,
which is THE desert of palestine, was exclusively in the jewish
portion, so how your defective neurons conclude that the arable
portion of the arab land was 25% is anyone's guess.
LET US NOTICE THAT THE MORON IS STILL AVOIDING HIS MIS-STATEMENT
REGARDING THE PARTITION AGREEMENT.
>
> The UN also took into account the existing population patterns and
> densities and attempted in good faith to do justice to both the
> communities without creating or exacerbating civil war. This was to no
> avail as it was inconsistent with the concrete plans for expansion
> prepared by the Palestinian Jews long before 1948.
I HAVE PROVEN THAT THE JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND THE ARABS REJECTED
IT; YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN FANTASY WORLD AND STILL DON'T GET IT. EITHER
THAT OR YOU ARE SIMPLY GOING TO TRY TO AVOID ADMITTING YOUR ERROR.
>
> > Desperate to find a haven for the remnants of European Jewry after the
> > Holocaust, the Jewish population accepted the plan which accorded them
> > a diminished state.
>
> Diminished, indeed. This is Ideological balderdash. Fifty-five percent
> of Palestine, a quarter of which was arable, including the country's
> two blue water ports, can not by any rational calculation be
> considered "diminished".
it was simply "diminished" relative to their hopes. WHEN THEY ACCEPTED
PARTITION, THEY ABANDONED THOSE HOPES.
The underlying premise here is ideological,
> i.e., that Jews, though a distinct minority and most of them recently
> arrived Europeans, had a *right and entitlement* superior to Arabs.
Jews had been purchasing land in palestine for many decades by 1947.
The jewish presence in palestine directly precipitated a huge increase
in the arab population, drawn there by the promise of a better life
thanks to the jews. Thus a substantial percentage of arabs in
palestine in 1947 were recently arrived, too.
NOTICE THAT H STILL FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT, IN SPITE OF
READING SO VERY MANY BOOKS AND JOURNALS ABOUT ISRAEL, HE APPARENTLY
DIDN'T AND STILL DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND
ARABS REJECTED IT.
If
> what they were given AND ACCEPTED (while deviously preparing to take
> most of the rest by force and ethnic cleansing)
THIS IMBECILE EXPECTS THERE IS ANYONE WHO IS NOT LAUGHING AT HIM NOW.
PLEASE TELL US, H, HOW DID THE DEVIOUS JEWS PLAN TO DO THEIR ETHNIC
CLEANSING AFTER ACCEPTING PARTITION HAD THE ARABS ACCEPTED IT ALSO?
HMMMM?
was diminished, it was
> so only in their own minds. They wanted it all.
WHAT THEY WANTED IS IRRELEVANT. WHAT THEY ACCEPTED IS ALL THAT IS
IMPORTANT. ARABS WANTED IT ALL THEN AND WANT IT ALL TODAY.
And the Zionist
> lunatic fringe want it all to this day.
I REPEAT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF ARABS, NOT JUST THE LUNATICS, WANT IT
ALL TODAY.
And they want it all despite
> the fact that the burdens incident to that desire are being
> disproportionately borne by the other 97% of Americans.
>
> The Arabs, intent on preventing any Jewish entity
>
> > in Palestine, rejected it.
>
> The Arabs IN PALESTINE at the time had no organized national
> leadership, no competent government. They were riven by clan
> allegiances and rivalries. If they can be blamed for hostility to
> Jews, the reverse is just as true. The rational goal was then and is
> now to craft a lasting compromise based on simple equity, not the
> imposition of facts on the ground determined by greater military
> power.
>
> The UN tried and failed. It's failure was guaranteed by the Zionists'
> ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine which began well *before* the
> declaration of independence of Israel in May of 1948.
Oy, here he goes in blahblah mode. Forgive me, I don't have time for
your nonsense. SIMPLE FACT: HAD ARABS ACCEPTED PARTITION, ALL WOULD
HAVE BEEN FINE. EVERY ARAB COUNTRY IN THE UN REJECTED PARTITION. HAD
PALESTINIAN ARABS WANTED TO ACCEPT, ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS SAY SO.
Funny, although they were so "disorganized", they managed to
communicate their rejection of partition fairly clearly. I repeat,
please tell the group how the devious jews would have carried off your
imaginary ethnic cleansing had the arabs accepted partition.
I am sure the group will forgive me for not wading through the below
mounds of HHW nonsense, for my work here is done. If there is a soul
who cannot see what an idiot H is, I recommend an eye exam. But H is
much more than an idiot - he is a liar, too, in the sense that he will
not admit error. Tata, H, you were particularly fun tonight. Thanks.
HHW
> On Nov 30, 6:42 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 3:02 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 4:28 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 3:02 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 4:28 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > <snip for focus>
>
> > > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > > chose not to.
>
> > > > > Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
>
> > > > Refute what I say, but bring a nice lunch. I have read the history.
>
> > > You have read A history - but it is worthless.
>
> > I've read a half dozen, Ratner,
>
> This is great! Now we are going to witness yet another episode of HHW
> dancing with the stars. In tonight's segment, H will try to dance
> around the fact that he said
>
> > > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > > chose not to.
>
> which of course is absurd. let's see the fancy footwork below!
Don't get too excited yet. My sentence above was carefully considered
and you don't know whereof you speak. The terms of the '47 partition
resolution protect the rights of people caught within an allocation of
lands to the opposite ethnicity. This is consistent with the plain
language of the Balfour Declaration, the League pronouncements and the
UN's decisions. Nowhere did Britain or these international agencies
*ever* explicitly or implicitly approve of ethnic cleansing. On the
contrary, they did their best to prevent it. When after the partition
the Israelis accepted it but cynically continued the ethnic cleansing
campaign known as the Nakba, they violated the express terms of the
1947 UN Resolution.
>
> recently, plus lots of stuff in the
>
> > journals. I've been following these issues for forty years in the
> > press and periodicals, and what do you try to parrot? What else? An
> > Israeli hasbara operation specializing in "Zionist education"-- based
> > in Israel. Zionist education is ideological education, the most
> > partizan pedagogy yet devised by mankind short of its religious cousin
> > which fueled things like Crusades and the colonization of Latin
> > America.
>
> notice not word one about 1947.
There are eloquent and charming "words" about 1947 in my post unless
you have deleted them below. We'll see.
Suddenly we are hearing about H's
> thoughts on topics as far-flung as hasbara and zionist education
> including, hehe, "partizan pedagogy", the Crusades, and Latin
> America!!
All probative, all devastating, and none of which you have refuted so
far.
>
>
>
> > > On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
> > > with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
> > > an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
> > > in blue.
>
> > Indeed and it was substantially more than half of Palestine and
> > contained both of its deep water ports.
>
> LOL! the sentence below tells the story:
What are you laughing at, Ratner? Can you articulate it? Why do you
have to refer to some unspecified place "below" without a response to
what I say?
> > Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
>
> > Which the Jews famously "made bloom".
>
> Yes, so?
>
> A very fruitful desert indeed.
>
> What are you saying, moron? that it would have been better to leave
> the negev virtually uninhabited? Spoken like a true muslim.
Miss Ratner, I am saying only that whining about getting desert in the
partition of a desert country is very likely disingenuous coming from
a Zionist propaganda mill without having been proved. And you've
provided nothing which proves it.
> > In fact a strong argument can be made that almost all of Palestine was
> > desert or near desert. If a quarter of the land allocated to the Jews
> > was arable, there could not have been a much greater proportion
> > allocated to the Arabs from their mere 45% of the whole.
>
> completely, utterly illogical. does your puny brain actually think the
> immediately arabble portion of arab land is DETERMINED by the
> immediately arable portion of jewish land?
Not at all, Missie Ratner. I neither said nor suggested that. I simply
said that it is unlikely there was substantial disparity and if there
was it didn't matter as there were other compensations, viz., more
acreage and the port cities. And I'll go further and point out that
the Jews were a minority on the land in any event.
How does that happen - is
> it some psychic force where some land speaks to other land? The negev,
> which is THE desert of palestine, was exclusively in the jewish
> portion, so how your defective neurons conclude that the arable
> portion of the arab land was 25% is anyone's guess.
>
> LET US NOTICE THAT THE MORON IS STILL AVOIDING HIS MIS-STATEMENT
> REGARDING THE PARTITION AGREEMENT.
And let us all notice that Miss Ratner again has her panties all
bunched up and her left pinky on the caps key.
> > The UN also took into account the existing population patterns and
> > densities and attempted in good faith to do justice to both the
> > communities without creating or exacerbating civil war. This was to no
> > avail as it was inconsistent with the concrete plans for expansion
> > prepared by the Palestinian Jews long before 1948.
>
> I HAVE PROVEN THAT THE JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND THE ARABS REJECTED
> IT; YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN FANTASY WORLD AND STILL DON'T GET IT. EITHER
> THAT OR YOU ARE SIMPLY GOING TO TRY TO AVOID ADMITTING YOUR ERROR.
Listen up. The Jews made a show of acceptance to buy time and to
manipulate international opinion. That it was a sham is determined by
their subsequent conduct which constituted immediate violation of the
agreement. I have made no error whatever. I've read the documents.
They're on the web.
> > > Desperate to find a haven for the remnants of European Jewry after the
> > > Holocaust, the Jewish population accepted the plan which accorded them
> > > a diminished state.
>
> > Diminished, indeed. This is Ideological balderdash. Fifty-five percent
> > of Palestine, a quarter of which was arable, including the country's
> > two blue water ports, can not by any rational calculation be
> > considered "diminished".
>
> it was simply "diminished" relative to their hopes.
Hopes? Plans, Ratner. Ideologically driven plans which included ethnic
cleansing which they euphemistically called "transfer" as if it were
some sort of bussing scheme.
WHEN THEY ACCEPTED
> PARTITION, THEY ABANDONED THOSE HOPES.
Bizarre, my dear girl! You should do a little reading. Ben-Gurion
abandoned nothing whatever. He and his Zionist leadership didn't
honestly accept the partition. They *continued* the ethnic cleansing
begun in 1947 even after their declaration of independence on May 14,
1948. They consciously violated the agreement with the UN. That is not
seriously disputed today. They made it impossible for the partition
they "accepted" to work. Perhaps YOU can put another gloss on it but I
suggest you do it historically. You might begin by getting a handle on
the number of Palestinian refugees who had already fled to neighboring
Arab lands by the time of the Declaration of Independence (which was
based on acceptance of the partition) and then how many were thrown
out afterwards.
> The underlying premise here is ideological,
>
> > i.e., that Jews, though a distinct minority and most of them recently
> > arrived Europeans, had a *right and entitlement* superior to Arabs.
>
> Jews had been purchasing land in palestine for many decades by 1947.
Yes, but at that point owned something like six or eight percent of
the country.
> The jewish presence in palestine directly precipitated a huge increase
> in the arab population, drawn there by the promise of a better life
> thanks to the jews.
I've always smelled hasbara misrepresentations here. You can't
document this, can you? And I've see no sign at all that Arabs
actively wanted to be ruled by Jews. It seems not to have changed much
since then. In any event you can't demonstrate the truth of such
alleged subjective motivations.
Thus a substantial percentage of arabs in
> palestine in 1947 were recently arrived, too.
Prove it and define "substantial percentage". Substantial means
something a tiny bit more than de minimus.
> NOTICE THAT H STILL FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT, IN SPITE OF
> READING SO VERY MANY BOOKS AND JOURNALS ABOUT ISRAEL, HE APPARENTLY
> DIDN'T AND STILL DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND
> ARABS REJECTED IT.
Face it, they "accepted" with no intention of honoring the letter or
spirit of the agreement. If I recall correctly Ben-Gurion even
admitted it privately. In any event their conduct proves it. There
need be no quibbles about motive.
> If
>
> > what they were given AND ACCEPTED (while deviously preparing to take
> > most of the rest by force and ethnic cleansing)
>
> THIS IMBECILE EXPECTS THERE IS ANYONE WHO IS NOT LAUGHING AT HIM NOW.
You're certainly not. If others are they are invited to explain it.
> PLEASE TELL US, H, HOW DID THE DEVIOUS JEWS PLAN TO DO THEIR ETHNIC
> CLEANSING AFTER ACCEPTING PARTITION HAD THE ARABS ACCEPTED IT ALSO?
> HMMMM?
Here's what I'm telling you, that the ethnic cleansing was begun
before Jewish acceptance of the partition resolution and continued
thereafter in violation of it. I further say that that is a meaningful
fact.
>
> was diminished, it was
>
> > so only in their own minds. They wanted it all.
>
> WHAT THEY WANTED IS IRRELEVANT. WHAT THEY ACCEPTED IS ALL THAT IS
> IMPORTANT. ARABS WANTED IT ALL THEN AND WANT IT ALL TODAY.
The acceptance was a sham. In the objective sense they accepted with
comprehensive mental reservations. It's a shame that you are so upset
here with all the world watching. It shows in public that you don't
understand the history. You really should read The Ethnic Cleansing of
Palestine but you can get a lot of good stuff from Benny Morris. You
know, the Morris of whom Deborah famously said, "Don't you just love
Benny Morris" before having read him.
>
> And the Zionist
>
> > lunatic fringe want it all to this day.
>
> I REPEAT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF ARABS, NOT JUST THE LUNATICS, WANT IT
> ALL TODAY.
Have you been polling the Palestinians, Miss Ratner? Their leaders are
willing to accept the 1967 borders. So is pretty much the entire Arab
world. So does the US. So does the rest of the globe.
> And they want it all despite
>
> > the fact that the burdens incident to that desire are being
> > disproportionately borne by the other 97% of Americans.
You don't dare respond to this. No moral quality we've seen in you can
induce you to do it.
>
> > The Arabs, intent on preventing any Jewish entity
>
> > > in Palestine, rejected it.
>
> > The Arabs IN PALESTINE at the time had no organized national
> > leadership, no competent government. They were riven by clan
> > allegiances and rivalries. If they can be blamed for hostility to
> > Jews, the reverse is just as true. The rational goal was then and is
> > now to craft a lasting compromise based on simple equity, not the
> > imposition of facts on the ground determined by greater military
> > power.
>
> > The UN tried and failed. It's failure was guaranteed by the Zionists'
> > ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine which began well *before* the
> > declaration of independence of Israel in May of 1948.
>
> Oy, here he goes in blahblah mode. Forgive me, I don't have time for
> your nonsense.
You don't have time to admit the truth? Or to read the history? You
can't even bring yourself to read the Zionist Benny Morris. He broke
the story of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Pappe later just
focused an entire monograph on it.
SIMPLE FACT: HAD ARABS ACCEPTED PARTITION, ALL WOULD
> HAVE BEEN FINE.
Simple historical fact: The Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestine was
in full swing months before the partition and did not even pause after
the "Jewish" acceptance of it. The ethnic cleansing violated the
agreement which the Jews never intended to honor.
EVERY ARAB COUNTRY IN THE UN REJECTED PARTITION. HAD
> PALESTINIAN ARABS WANTED TO ACCEPT, ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS SAY SO.
But large parts of their share under partition was already cleansed
and occupied. What is it you would have had them "accept"? Their
defeat?
> Funny, although they were so "disorganized", they managed to
> communicate their rejection of partition fairly clearly. I repeat,
> please tell the group how the devious jews would have carried off your
> imaginary ethnic cleansing had the arabs accepted partition.
There was nothing imaginary about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
750,000 refugees were driven out of the country. More met that fate in
1967. There can be no question as to Zionist intentions either then or
now.
>
> I am sure the group will forgive me for not wading through the below
> mounds of HHW nonsense, for my work here is done.
Only if your "work" consists exclusively of misrepresenting the
history of Israel.
If there is a soul
> who cannot see what an idiot H is, I recommend an eye exam. But H is
> much more than an idiot - he is a liar, too, in the sense that he will
> not admit error. Tata, H, you were particularly fun tonight. Thanks.
"Tata" says Missie Ratner as she begins her retreat into her trademark
billows of squiddish ink. And it's not difficult to see why, beginning
in the paragraphs immediately below.
drahcir
<snip for focus>
I am here going to have fun with H for awhile and reply to his
nonsense until I get bored. IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
HISTORY OF ISRAEL. IS IT POSSIBLE TO FIND 6 BOOKS ABOUT ISRAEL THAT DO
NOT MENTION THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND ARABS REJECTED IT, OR IS
THIS ONE MORE HHW LIE?
> > > > You have read A history - but it is worthless.
>
> > > I've read a half dozen, Ratner,
>
> > This is great! Now we are going to witness yet another episode of HHW
> > dancing with the stars. In tonight's segment, H will try to dance
> > around the fact that he said
>
> > > > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > > > chose not to.
>
> > which of course is absurd. let's see the fancy footwork below!
>
> Don't get too excited yet. My sentence above was carefully considered
> and you don't know whereof you speak.
OK, folks, you've heard of Sing along with Mitch? Well, this is Sing
Along with H. The lyrics are below, or, if they are too tedious, you
can simply substitute "blah blah blah", which have exactly the same
meaning.
The terms of the '47 partition
> resolution protect the rights of people caught within an allocation of
> lands to the opposite ethnicity. This is consistent with the plain
> language of the Balfour Declaration, the League pronouncements and the
> UN's decisions. Nowhere did Britain or these international agencies
> *ever* explicitly or implicitly approve of ethnic cleansing. On the
> contrary, they did their best to prevent it. When after the partition
> the Israelis accepted it but cynically continued the ethnic cleansing
> campaign known as the Nakba, they violated the express terms of the
> 1947 UN Resolution.
C'mon, folks, you know how to sing. I can't hear you!! HAVE FUN!!
Psst, hey H, are you that far gone that you think the above is serving
any purpose except making anyone who may have had the slightest doubt
as to what an ass you are convinced?
>
>
>
> > recently, plus lots of stuff in the
>
> > > journals. I've been following these issues for forty years in the
> > > press and periodicals, and what do you try to parrot? What else? An
> > > Israeli hasbara operation specializing in "Zionist education"-- based
> > > in Israel. Zionist education is ideological education, the most
> > > partizan pedagogy yet devised by mankind short of its religious cousin
> > > which fueled things like Crusades and the colonization of Latin
> > > America.
>
> > notice not word one about 1947.
>
> There are eloquent and charming "words" about 1947 in my post unless
> you have deleted them below. We'll see.
I don't snip without signification.
>
> Suddenly we are hearing about H's
>
> > thoughts on topics as far-flung as hasbara and zionist education
> > including, hehe, "partizan pedagogy", the Crusades, and Latin
> > America!!
>
> All probative, all devastating, and none of which you have refuted so
> far.
You want refutation? fine. They're all bullshit. Done. In the future,
please try to refrain from being so completely stupid as to request
"refutation" of simple, unsupported blather.
>
>
>
> > > > On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
> > > > with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
> > > > an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
> > > > in blue.
>
> > > Indeed and it was substantially more than half of Palestine and
> > > contained both of its deep water ports.
>
> > LOL! the sentence below tells the story:
>
> What are you laughing at, Ratner? Can you articulate it?
I DID, MORON. DO YOU COMPREHEND THE DEFINITION OF "BELOW"?
Why do you
> have to refer to some unspecified place "below" without a response to
> what I say?
THE NEXT SENTENCE IS THE RELEVANT ONE, MORON. UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T
DRAG YOU BY YOUR NOSE, SO YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.
>
> > > Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
>
> > > Which the Jews famously "made bloom".
>
> > Yes, so?
SO??
>
> > A very fruitful desert indeed.
>
> > What are you saying, moron? that it would have been better to leave
> > the negev virtually uninhabited? Spoken like a true muslim.
>
> Miss Ratner, I am saying only that whining about getting desert in the
> partition of a desert country
Whining is IRRELEVANT. JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION, ARABS REJECTED IT.
is very likely disingenuous coming from
> a Zionist propaganda mill without having been proved.
The above sentence makes NO SENSE. What precisely is it that you are
suggesting
needs proof? That the jewish portion was 75% desert? If so, go study
the geography. I know of no serious challenge to that premise. If you
do, post it here WITH CITATION.
And you've
> provided nothing which proves it.
>
> > > In fact a strong argument can be made that almost all of Palestine was
> > > desert or near desert. If a quarter of the land allocated to the Jews
> > > was arable, there could not have been a much greater proportion
> > > allocated to the Arabs from their mere 45% of the whole.
>
> > completely, utterly illogical. does your puny brain actually think the
> > immediately arabble portion of arab land is DETERMINED by the
> > immediately arable portion of jewish land?
>
> Not at all, Missie Ratner. I neither said nor suggested that.
Yes, you did:
> If a quarter of the land allocated to the Jews
> > > was arable, there could not have been a much greater proportion
> > > allocated to the Arabs from their mere 45% of the whole.
the key words: "THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MUCH GREATER PROPORTION
ALLOCATED TO THE ARABS [of arable land]" It's there in black and
white, H. Live with it
I simply
> said that it is unlikely there was substantial disparity
Right, in your view, because jewish land was 25% arable, somehow that
makes arab land 25% arable, although the NEGEV DESERT was entirely
included in the jewish portion. Do you know what the population of the
negev consisted of before israel? a few thousand bedouin. PERIOD. THe
reason is that IT IS A DESERT. Forget it, H, you are just plain
warped.
and if there
> was it didn't matter as there were other compensations, viz., more
> acreage and the port cities. And I'll go further and point out that
> the Jews were a minority on the land in any event.
This grows tiring:
"At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a
majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus
600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to
them by the [partition] resolution and in Jerusalem."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html#e
>
> How does that happen - is
>
> > it some psychic force where some land speaks to other land? The negev,
> > which is THE desert of palestine, was exclusively in the jewish
> > portion, so how your defective neurons conclude that the arable
> > portion of the arab land was 25% is anyone's guess.
>
> > LET US NOTICE THAT THE MORON IS STILL AVOIDING HIS MIS-STATEMENT
> > REGARDING THE PARTITION AGREEMENT.
>
> And let us all notice that Miss Ratner again has her panties all
> bunched up and her left pinky on the caps key.
No possible comeback for poor H.
>
> > > The UN also took into account the existing population patterns and
> > > densities and attempted in good faith to do justice to both the
> > > communities without creating or exacerbating civil war. This was to no
> > > avail as it was inconsistent with the concrete plans for expansion
> > > prepared by the Palestinian Jews long before 1948.
>
> > I HAVE PROVEN THAT THE JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND THE ARABS REJECTED
> > IT; YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN FANTASY WORLD AND STILL DON'T GET IT. EITHER
> > THAT OR YOU ARE SIMPLY GOING TO TRY TO AVOID ADMITTING YOUR ERROR.
>
> Listen up. The Jews made a show of acceptance to buy time and to
> manipulate international opinion. That it was a sham is determined by
> their subsequent conduct which constituted immediate violation of the
> agreement. I have made no error whatever. I've read the documents.
> They're on the web.
YOU'VE READ NOTHING. YOU WERE IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT JEWS ACCEPTED
PARTITION. HERE'S WHAT YOU WROTE:
> > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > chose not to.
You said "CHOSE NOT TO". That indicates complete ignorance of one of
the most basic facts of israeli history. What this means is that YOU
ARE SIMPLY A BLATHERING IGNORAMUS.
>
> > > > Desperate to find a haven for the remnants of European Jewry after the
> > > > Holocaust, the Jewish population accepted the plan which accorded them
> > > > a diminished state.
>
> > > Diminished, indeed. This is Ideological balderdash. Fifty-five percent
> > > of Palestine, a quarter of which was arable, including the country's
> > > two blue water ports, can not by any rational calculation be
> > > considered "diminished".
>
> > it was simply "diminished" relative to their hopes.
>
> Hopes? Plans, Ratner. Ideologically driven plans which included ethnic
> cleansing which they euphemistically called "transfer" as if it were
> some sort of bussing scheme.
>
> WHEN THEY ACCEPTED
>
> > PARTITION, THEY ABANDONED THOSE HOPES.
>
> Bizarre, my dear girl! You should do a little reading. Ben-Gurion
> abandoned nothing whatever. He and his Zionist leadership didn't
> honestly accept the partition. They *continued* the ethnic cleansing
No, they didn't, since that "cleansing" did not exist.
> begun in 1947 even after their declaration of independence on May 14,
> 1948. They consciously violated the agreement with the UN. That is not
> seriously disputed today. They made it impossible for the partition
> they "accepted" to work. Perhaps YOU can put another gloss on it but I
> suggest you do it historically.
Simple. As I have stated already twice in this thread, your "ethnic
cleansing" shtick makes no sense. that's because you got it from the
one, invalid history of israel you have read, pappe. It makes no sense
because if partition were accepted by the arabs and the country were
divided along the un established boundaries, there would be no
violence and no opportunity for a liar like pappe to call retaliation
against arab violence "ethnic cleansing".
You might begin by getting a handle on
> the number of Palestinian refugees who had already fled to neighboring
> Arab lands by the time of the Declaration of Independence (which was
> based on acceptance of the partition) and then how many were thrown
> out afterwards.
irrelevant. see above. arabs made their bed, but don't enjoy sleeping
in it. they made a bed in the forties, they made another in 1967.
tough luck.
>
> > The underlying premise here is ideological,
>
> > > i.e., that Jews, though a distinct minority and most of them recently
> > > arrived Europeans, had a *right and entitlement* superior to Arabs.
>
> > Jews had been purchasing land in palestine for many decades by 1947.
>
> Yes, but at that point owned something like six or eight percent of
> the country.
Jews were a majority in the land they were assigned
>
> > The jewish presence in palestine directly precipitated a huge increase
> > in the arab population, drawn there by the promise of a better life
> > thanks to the jews.
>
> I've always smelled hasbara misrepresentations here. You can't
> document this, can you? And I've see no sign at all that Arabs
> actively wanted to be ruled by Jews. It seems not to have changed much
> since then. In any event you can't demonstrate the truth of such
> alleged subjective motivations.
>
> Thus a substantial percentage of arabs in
>
> > palestine in 1947 were recently arrived, too.
>
> Prove it and define "substantial percentage". Substantial means
> something a tiny bit more than de minimus.
>
> > NOTICE THAT H STILL FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT, IN SPITE OF
> > READING SO VERY MANY BOOKS AND JOURNALS ABOUT ISRAEL, HE APPARENTLY
> > DIDN'T AND STILL DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND
> > ARABS REJECTED IT.
>
> Face it, they "accepted" with no intention of honoring the letter or
> spirit of the agreement. If I recall correctly Ben-Gurion even
> admitted it privately. In any event their conduct proves it. There
> need be no quibbles about motive.
There has been much on the web about what bengurion stated
'privately'. It's a hoot. If partition were accepted by arabs, all
would be well. PERIOD.
>
> > If
>
> > > what they were given AND ACCEPTED (while deviously preparing to take
> > > most of the rest by force and ethnic cleansing)
>
> > THIS IMBECILE EXPECTS THERE IS ANYONE WHO IS NOT LAUGHING AT HIM NOW.
>
> You're certainly not. If others are they are invited to explain it.
I have. See below. Below, as in THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE.
>
> > PLEASE TELL US, H, HOW DID THE DEVIOUS JEWS PLAN TO DO THEIR ETHNIC
> > CLEANSING AFTER ACCEPTING PARTITION HAD THE ARABS ACCEPTED IT ALSO?
> > HMMMM?
>
> Here's what I'm telling you, that the ethnic cleansing was begun
> before Jewish acceptance of the partition resolution
Sound the trumpets! it has finally sunk in to the moron's "brain" that
jews accepted partition!!! HURRAH!!
p.s. there was no ethnic cleansing. There was violence - arab
instigated. Even many new historians admit that. Try Segev's One
Palestine Complete.
and continued
> thereafter in violation of it. I further say that that is a meaningful
> fact.
It's not meaningful because it's not a fact.
>
>
>
> > was diminished, it was
>
> > > so only in their own minds. They wanted it all.
>
> > WHAT THEY WANTED IS IRRELEVANT. WHAT THEY ACCEPTED IS ALL THAT IS
> > IMPORTANT. ARABS WANTED IT ALL THEN AND WANT IT ALL TODAY.
>
> The acceptance was a sham.
Also irrelevant, even if it were true. It is irrelevant because if
arabs had accepted, violence would end, there would be 2 countries
now. BUT ARABS WANTED ALL JEWS DEAD OR GONE. Looks like they have been
disappointed.
In the objective sense they accepted with
> comprehensive mental reservations.
BWAHAHAHA!!! "Comprehensive mental reservations" That is PRECIOUS!!.
Thanks for that one, H, you silly oaf.
>
It's a shame that you are so upset
> here with all the world watching. It shows in public that you don't
> understand the history.
This coming from the silly oaf who just realized that jews accepted
partition OFFICIALLY and thus, had arabs done the same, were
sacrificing all of their supposed megalomaniacal desires. THAT ONE
SIMPLE FACT IS ANATHEMA TO FREAKS LIKE H. HE CAN'T CONTEND WITH IT,
SINCE IT TRUMPS ALL OF HIS "ETHNIC CLEANSING" LIES.
You really should read The Ethnic Cleansing of
> Palestine
I have shown that it was critically panned as lies. I have told you
many times that I don't read poorly reviewed books, which are the ONLY
kind you read because you predetermine what it is you want to see in a
book before you read it. I don't. I have read new historian books as
well as traditional ones.
but you can get a lot of good stuff from Benny Morris. You
> know, the Morris of whom Deborah famously said, "Don't you just love
> Benny Morris" before having read him.
I have wanted to read morris and will at some point.
>
>
>
> > And the Zionist
>
> > > lunatic fringe want it all to this day.
>
> > I REPEAT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF ARABS, NOT JUST THE LUNATICS, WANT IT
> > ALL TODAY.
>
> Have you been polling the Palestinians, Miss Ratner?
Have you? Are you denying that the arabs as a whole want all of
palestine. IF SO STATE IT HERE.
Their leaders are
> willing to accept the 1967 borders. So is pretty much the entire Arab
> world. So does the US. So does the rest of the globe.
Sorry, that's not the way it works. The arabs rejected partition,
started a war, when it became apparent that they had lost territory,
they suggested accepting partition borders. similarly, after losing
territory in their 1967 war, they have wanted reversion to the green
line. Sorry, that may be arab logic, but that will not happen in
israel. It's amusing to ponder what would have happened had the arabs
won territory in the forties or in '67 when someone would have asked
them nicely to please give it back.
> > And they want it all despite
>
> > > the fact that the burdens incident to that desire are being
> > > disproportionately borne by the other 97% of Americans.
>
> You don't dare respond to this. No moral quality we've seen in you can
> induce you to do it.
It doesn't need response - it makes no sense. Disproportionately to
WHAT? Who are the 97%? non-jews? It's just blather and you want
response.
>
>
>
> > > The Arabs, intent on preventing any Jewish entity
>
> > > > in Palestine, rejected it.
>
> > > The Arabs IN PALESTINE at the time had no organized national
> > > leadership, no competent government. They were riven by clan
> > > allegiances and rivalries. If they can be blamed for hostility to
> > > Jews, the reverse is just as true. The rational goal was then and is
> > > now to craft a lasting compromise based on simple equity, not the
> > > imposition of facts on the ground determined by greater military
> > > power.
>
> > > The UN tried and failed. It's failure was guaranteed by the Zionists'
> > > ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine which began well *before* the
> > > declaration of independence of Israel in May of 1948.
>
> > Oy, here he goes in blahblah mode. Forgive me, I don't have time for
> > your nonsense.
>
> You don't have time to admit the truth? Or to read the history? You
> can't even bring yourself to read the Zionist Benny Morris. He broke
> the story of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Pappe later just
> focused an entire monograph on it.
>
> SIMPLE FACT: HAD ARABS ACCEPTED PARTITION, ALL WOULD
>
> > HAVE BEEN FINE.
>
> Simple historical fact: The Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestine was
> in full swing months before the partition and did not even pause after
> the "Jewish" acceptance of it. The ethnic cleansing violated the
> agreement which the Jews never intended to honor.
Ethnic cleansing didn't exist. Violence did, arab instigated. Had
arabs accepted partition, there would be no excuse for violence from
either side. End of story.
>
> EVERY ARAB COUNTRY IN THE UN REJECTED PARTITION. HAD
>
> > PALESTINIAN ARABS WANTED TO ACCEPT, ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS SAY SO.
>
> But large parts of their share under partition was already cleansed
> and occupied. What is it you would have had them "accept"? Their
> defeat?
Ah, so suddenly now, the partition agreement was unfair. poor H does
not know where to turn.
>
> > Funny, although they were so "disorganized", they managed to
> > communicate their rejection of partition fairly clearly. I repeat,
> > please tell the group how the devious jews would have carried off your
> > imaginary ethnic cleansing had the arabs accepted partition.
>
> There was nothing imaginary about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
> 750,000 refugees were driven out of the country.
that's your view. not mine, nor that of the authors I have read. There
are NUMEROUS documentary examples of jews pleading with the arabs not
to leave. Although clearly some arab villages in strategic locations
were forcibly vacated by jews fearing a war, many if not most were
"encouraged" by marauding arabs. there are also numerous documentary
examples of arabs telling the people to leave so that killing jews in
the coming war would be easier.
More met that fate in
> 1967. There can be no question as to Zionist intentions either then or
> now.
>
tough luck. had arabs accepted partition, all would be well. not to
mention, had arabs accepted jews in palestine, partition would not
have been suggested.
>
> > I am sure the group will forgive me for not wading through the below
> > mounds of HHW nonsense, for my work here is done.
>
> Only if your "work" consists exclusively of misrepresenting the
> history of Israel.
My "work" is to show that you are an ignoramus who didn't even realize
that jews accepted partition. That work is done.
drahcir
<snip for focus>
>
> > Thus a substantial percentage of arabs in
>
> > > palestine in 1947 were recently arrived, too.
>
> > Prove it and define "substantial percentage". Substantial means
> > something a tiny bit more than de minimus.
Sorry, your verbosity demands that I only skim your silly posts, and I
overlooked the above request.
"3. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or
dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab
immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic
situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British
Mandate relative to surrounding countries. By 1948, there were
approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the
Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in
Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman
times. Analysis of population by sub-districts shows that Arab
population tended to increase the most between 1931 and 1948 in the
same areas where there were large proportions of Jews. Therefore,
Zionist immigration did not displace Arabs."
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm
"there is every reason to believe that consequential immigration of
Arabs into and within Palestine occurred during the Ottoman and
British mandatory periods. Among the most compelling arguments in
support of such immigration is the universally acknowledged and
practiced linkage between regional economic disparities and migratory
impulses."
http://www.meforum.org/article/522 READ THIS ONE.
"But throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was
unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope-Simpson Commission, sent from London
to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of
ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt,
Transjordan. Syria and North Africa had the effect of displacing the
prospective Jewish immigrants. At the same time that the British
slammed the gates on Jews, they permitted or ignored massive illegal
immigration into Western Palestine from Arab countries. As noted
above, in 1939 Winston Churchill observed, "... far from being
persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and
multiplied ..." How could the British claim that the Zionist settlers
were the problem when Arab immigration continued unchecked?"
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_oppose_immigration.php
<snip>
dsharavi
> > > How long will it be before HHW tries to explain that when he said
> > > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > chose not to.
> > > what he really meant was that the Jews (of course there was no Israel
> > > in 1947) accepted the terms of the 1947 partition?
> On Nov 29, 9:45 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > What he really meant was to spread more lies about & hatred for Israel &
> > Jews.
> > Susan
On Nov 29, 7:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ya think? Honestly, I think he's just an ignoramus who's comprehension
> of Israel is about as accurate as mine of nematodes. the difference is
> that i don't go around blabbing about nematodes.
You're not a sone nematodim either.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > > On Nov 28, 4:28 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip for focus>
> > > > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > > > chose not to.
> > > > > > Read a book about israel's history sometime. A book other than pappe.
> > > > > Refute what I say, but bring a nice lunch. I have read the history.
> > > > You have read A history - but it is worthless.
> > > I've read a half dozen, Ratner,
> On Nov 30, 10:15 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is great! Now we are going to witness yet another episode of HHW
> > dancing with the stars. In tonight's segment, H will try to dance
> > around the fact that he said
> > > > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > > > chose not to.
> > which of course is absurd. let's see the fancy footwork below!
On Nov 30, 11:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don't get too excited yet. My sentence above was carefully considered
Over a fifth of tequila, no doubt.
> and you don't know whereof you speak. The terms of the '47 partition
> resolution protect the rights of people caught within an allocation of
> lands to the opposite ethnicity.
The terms of the resolution didn't do much to protect the rights of
the Jews, did they, after the Arabs rejected the partition resolution
in toto, and launched a terrorist campaign to "finish Hitler's work."
Neither did the UN, or anybody else, for that matter.
[flush meaningless palaver]
Deborah
dsharavi
> willing to accept the 1967 borders. So is pretty much the entire Arab
> world.
That's because, in 1967, there were no borders.
> And let us all notice that Miss Ratner again has her panties all
> bunched up and her left pinky on the caps key.
HHW is suddenly quite interested in drahcir's briefs, isn't he?
> You
> know, the Morris of whomDeborahfamously said, "Don't you just love
> Benny Morris" before having read him.
Nope, and neither does HHW, since his unsupported "famous saying" went
to the garbage along with the tequila bottle in which he spied it.
[flush remaining HHW lies, ignorant rants, and usual twaddle]
Deborah
drahcir
> On Nov 30, 11:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Have you been polling the Palestinians, Miss Ratner? Their leaders are
> > willing to accept the 1967 borders. So is pretty much the entire Arab
> > world.
>
> That's because, in 1967, there were no borders.
>
> > And let us all notice that Miss Ratner again has her panties all
> > bunched up and her left pinky on the caps key.
>
> HHW is suddenly quite interested in drahcir's briefs, isn't he?
what suddenly? he's been fantasizing about my underwear for quite some
time now. He seems to think that the greatest insult he can throw my
way is to refer to me as female. The implications of that are obvious.
drahcir
i wish i understood, but i don't.
>
> Deborah
dsharavi
> > > Have you been polling the Palestinians, Miss Ratner? Their leaders are
> > > willing to accept the 1967 borders. So is pretty much the entire Arab
> > > world.
> On Dec 1, 7:45 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That's because, in 1967, there were no borders.
> > > And let us all notice that Miss Ratner again has her panties all
> > > bunched up and her left pinky on the caps key.
> > HHW is suddenly quite interested in drahcir's briefs, isn't he?
On Dec 1, 5:43 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what suddenly? he's been fantasizing about my underwear for quite some
> time now.
Yes, well, he's almost as hot for your underwear as Vera Perks is for
me.
>He seems to think that the greatest insult he can throw my
> way is to refer to me as female. The implications of that are obvious.
It's been clear for some time that he's an MCP, as well as a sone
Yisrael. Need I add ignoramus?
> > > You
> > > know, the Morris of whomDeborahfamously said, "Don't you just love
> > > Benny Morris" before having read him.
> > Nope, and neither does HHW, since his unsupported "famous saying" went
> > to the garbage along with the tequila bottle in which he spied it.
> > [flush remaining HHW lies, ignorant rants, and usual twaddle]
> > Deborah
HHW has never bothered to point out where, exactly, I ever said this.
Presumably he got it from the same tequila bottle he got the so-called
"racist remark" he claimed I made about Al Sharpton. More likely,
though, he got it from another tequila bottle.
Deborah
HHW
> On Dec 1, 2:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip for focus>
>
> I am here going to have fun with H for awhile and reply to his
> nonsense until I get bored.
Such a powerful opening gambit, Richard; you prepare your bug-out
justification before you begin.
"Why use two words when ten will do?" (Federico Fellini)
IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
> IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
*formally* accepted partition. In fact they did it twice, in 1937 and
1947. I've acknowledged it over and over. They just didn't do it
honestly.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO FIND 6 BOOKS ABOUT ISRAEL THAT DO
> NOT MENTION THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND ARABS REJECTED IT, OR IS
> THIS ONE MORE HHW LIE?
Listen carefully now, Richard. This is the truth of the matter:
"A third moral justification (for the creation of Israel--HHW) is the
history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West, especially the
tragic experience of the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for
centuries and many believe they can be safe only in a Jewish homeland,
Israel is said to deserve special treatment. This view formed the
basis for the original Zionist program, played an important role in
convincing the United States and other countries to back Israel's
founding, and continues to resonate today.
"There is no question that Jews suffered greatly from the despicable
legacy of anti-Semitism and that Israel's creation was an appropriate
response to a long record of crimes. This history provides a strong
moral case for supporting Israel's founding and continued existence.
This backing is also consistent with America's general commitment to
national self-determination. But one cannot ignore the fact that the
creation of Israel involved additional crimes against a largely
innocent third party: the Palestinians. Crimes against Jews justify
backing Israel's existence, but its crimes against Palestinians
undermine its claim to special treatment.
"The history of these events is well documented. When political
Zionism began in earnest in the late nineteenth century, there were
only about fifteen thousand to seventeen thousand Jews living in
Palestine. In 1893, for example, the Arabs comprised roughly 95
percent of the population, and though under Ottoman control, they had
been in continuous possession of this territory for thirteen hundred
years. The old Zionist adage that Palestine was 'a land without a
people for a people without a land' was dead wrong regarding the land;
it was occupied by another people.'
"The early Zionists hoped that the waves of Jews who began leaving
Europe in the last decades of the nineteenth century would come to
Palestine, allowing the Jews to gain a decisive numerical advantage
over the Arabs there. But that was not to happen, mainly because most
of these Jews preferred to go to the United States. Only one hundred
thousand of the four million Jews who left Europe between 1880 and
1920 went to Palestine. In fact, until Hitler came to power, the Jews
in Palestine could not fill 'the generous immigration quotas allowed
by the British.' In 1948, when Israel was founded, its 650,000 Jews
were only about 35 percent of Palestine's population and they owned
only 7 percent of its land.
"From the start, the leading Zionists were determined to create a
Jewish state that covered virtually all of Palestine, and even parts
of Lebanon and Syria. Of course, there were differences among them on
where they thought the borders should be drawn in an ideal world, and
almost all recognized that it might not be possible to realize all of
their territorial ambitions. The mainstream Zionist leadership, it
should be emphasized, was never interested in establishing a
binational state where Arabs and Jews lived side by side in a country
that had no religious identity and might even have more Arabs than
Jews. The goal from the beginning was to create instead a Jewish state
in which Jews comprised at least 85 percent of the population.
"The Zionists' ambitions also went beyond a permanent partition of
Palestine. It is widely believed in the United States, especially
among Israel's supporters, that the Zionist were willing to agree to a
permanently partitioned Palestine, and indeed they did agree to the
partition plans put forward by Britain's Peel Commission in 1937 and
the UN in 1947 But their acceptance of these plans did not mean that
they intended to accept only part of Palestine in perpetuity. As
recent scholarship makes abundantly clear, the Zionist leadership was
sometimes to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical
maneuver and not their real objective. They had no intention of
coexisting along side a viable Palestinian state over the long run, as
that outcome was in direct conflict with their dream of creating a
Jewish state in all of Palestine.
"There was fierce opposition among the Zionists to the Peel
Commission's partition plan, and their leader, David Ben-Gurion, was
barely able to get his fellow Zionists to accept it. They eventually
agreed to the proposal, however, because they recognized that Ben-
Gurion intended eventually to take all of the land of Palestine. The
Zionist leader made this point clearly in the summer of 1937 when he
told the Zionist Executive, 'After the formation of a large army in
the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition
and expand t the whole of Palestine.' Similarly, he told his son Amos
that same year, 'Erect a Jewish State at once, even if it is not in
the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must
come.'
"The Peel Commission's plan went nowhere in 1937, and over the course
of the ensuing decade the Zionists REMAINED COMMITTED (emphasis HHW)
to incorporating all of Mandate Palestine into a future Jewish state.
Ben-Gurion made a number of comments in the first half of 1947 that
show he still wanted all of Palestine. For example, the Israeli
scholar Uri Ben-Eliezer reports:
'On May 13, 1947, Ben-Gurion told a meeting of the Jewish Agency
Executive which was held in the United States: 'We want the land of
Israel in its entirety. That was the original intention.' A week
later, speaking to the Elected Assembly in Jerusalem, the leader of
the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine--HHW) wondered: 'Does
anyone among us disagree that the original intention of the Balfour
Declaration and the Mandate, the original intention of the hopes
harbored by generations of the Jewish people, was finally to establish
a Jewish state in the whole Land of Israel?' Speaking to the Mapai
Secretariat in June, Ben-Gurion had already negotiated a deal with
King Abdullah of Transjordan to divide up Palestine between Israel and
Transjordan and deny the Palestinians a state. This secret
arrangement, which Britain endorsed, allowed Transjordan to acquire
the West Bank and Israel to take what it could of the rest of
Palestine. The deal was ultimately implemented during the 1948 war,
although in a somewhat disjointed fashion. Israeli leaders, not
surprisingly, gave serious thought during the war to conquering the
West Bank and taking all of Mandate Palestine for their new state, but
they decided that the likely costs outweighed the potential benefits.
Transjordan, which later became Jordan, controlled the West Bank until
the 1967 Six-Day War, when the IDF conquered it. In short, Israel's
founding fathers were determined from the beginning to create a
'greater Israel,' which left no room for a Palestinian state and
little room for Palestinians inside the Jewish state.
"Given that Arabs heavily outnumbered Jews in Palestine and that the
Zionists were bent on conquering as much territory as feasible, they
had little choice but to expel large numbers of Arabs from the
territory that would eventually become Israel. There was no other way
to accomplish their objective, as the Arabs were hardly likely to give
up their land voluntarily. This is why the Peel Commission's plan to
partition Palestine called explicitly for population transfer. It is
also why the UN partition plan, which called for establishing an
Israel that was 55 percent Jewish and 45 percent Arab, was unworkable.
There was certainly no way that a Jewish state could be created in all
of Palestine without convincing large numbers of Arabs to leave.
"In light of these realities, expulsion was a frequent topic of
conversation among Zionists since the earliest days of the movement,
and it was widely recognized as the only realistic way to solve the
demogrdaphic problem that stood in the way of creating a Jewish state.
Ben-Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that 'it is
impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population]
without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.' Or as he wrote his son in
October 1937, 'We shall organize a modern defense force.....and then I
am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in other parts
of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or
by some other means.' No doubt he would have preferred to do so via
'mutual agreement,' but Ben-Gurion understood that this was a remote
possibility and that the Zionists would need a strong army to
accomplish their aims. Morris puts the point succinctly: 'Of course,
Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there coud be no
Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its
midst....Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state
would not have come into being. Without the uprooting ofthe
Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.
"Expulsion is a horrible and controversial strategy and it makes no
sense for any group contemplating the transfer of a rival population
to announce its intentions to the world. Thus, after commenting in
1941 that he could not imagine how transfer could be accomplished
without 'brutal compulsion,' Gen-Gurion went on to say that the
Zionists should not 'discourage other people, British or American,who
favour transfer from advocating this course, but he should in no way
make it part of our programme.' He was not rejecting this policy,
however; he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly
proclaim it. Further reflecting how 'highly sensitive' the subject of
transfer was to Israel's founding fathers, Benny Morris notes that 'it
was common practice in Zionist bodies to order stenographers to 'take
a break' and thus to exclude from the record discussion on such
matters.' Moreover he notes that 'Jewish press reports' describing how
Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders reacted to the Peel Commission's
plan for partitioning Palestine 'generally failed to mention that Ben-
Gurion, or anyone else, had come out strongly in favor of transfer or
indeed had even raised the subject.'
"The opportunity to expel the Palestinians and create a Jewish state
came in 1948, when Jewish forces drove up to seven hundred thousand
Palestinians into exile. (Actually beginning in 1947 and extending for
several years thereafter--HHW) Israelis and their supporters in the
United States long claimed that the Arabs fled because their leaders
told them to, but scholars have demolished this myth. In fact, most
Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear
of violent death at the hands of Zionist forces led most of them to
flee. After the war, Israel barred the return of the Palestinian
exiles. As Ben-Gurion put it in June 1948, 'We must prevent at all
costs their return.' By 1962 Israel owned almost 93 percent of the
land inside its borders. To achieve this outcome, 531 Arab villages
were destroyed 'and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied of their
inhabitants.' Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan captures the
catastrophe that Zionists inflicted on the Palestinians to create the
state of Israel: 'Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab
villages. You do not even now the names of these Arab villages, and I
do not blame you because the geography books no longer exist, not only
do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either...
There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a
former Arab population.' "
(From the chapter entitled "A Dwindling Moral Case" commencing at p.
92 et seq. under the heading "Compensation for Past Crimes" in "The
Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen
M. Walt, twenty-three footnotes omitted)
Here are the lyrics, "folks":
"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That
is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us,
but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from
Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to
them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but
was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and
stolen their country. Why should they accept that?" (Ben-Gurion to
Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, in 1956, Id.,
quoted at p. 96)
> Psst, hey H, are you that far gone that you think the above is serving
> any purpose except making anyone who may have had the slightest doubt
> as to what an ass you are convinced?
"The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest." (Id.,
Jabotinsky, 1923)
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian." (Id., Golda Meir)
Clip
> > > recently, plus lots of stuff in the
>
> > > > journals. I've been following these issues for forty years in the
> > > > press and periodicals, and what do you try to parrot? What else? An
> > > > Israeli hasbara operation specializing in "Zionist education"-- based
> > > > in Israel. Zionist education is ideological education, the most
> > > > partizan pedagogy yet devised by mankind short of its religious cousin
> > > > which fueled things like Crusades and the colonization of Latin
> > > > America.
>
> > > notice not word one about 1947.
>
> > There are eloquent and charming "words" about 1947 in my post unless
> > you have deleted them below. We'll see.
>
> I don't snip without signification.
That's not true, but you don't do it all the time like some of the
cowards here.
>
>
>
> > Suddenly we are hearing about H's
>
> > > thoughts on topics as far-flung as hasbara and zionist education
> > > including, hehe, "partizan pedagogy", the Crusades, and Latin
> > > America!!
Must I root out the quote from Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to the
effect that the famed slaughter in Macbeth was the work of petty
criminals unable to achieve economies of scale as they were not
informed and justified by ideology? Why don't you look it up yourself.
You need to reflect on what you're taught here.
>
> > All probative, all devastating, and none of which you have refuted so
> > far.
>
> You want refutation? fine. They're all bullshit. Done. In the future,
> please try to refrain from being so completely stupid as to request
> "refutation" of simple, unsupported blather.
You just don't get it. I made a reference to the role of ideology in
human history, one which any broadly educated reader would have picked
up immediately. Political ideology and the governments of nation
states are the two most dangerous engines of destruction ever created
by mankind. They have magnified man's capacity for evil a thousand
fold. Do look up Solzhenitsyn on Macbeth. Look up "Death by
Government" and "Lethal Politics". While you're doing that give some
thought to the fact that Israeli policy is driven by ideology, a nasty
one with a record of achieving those economies.
> > > > > On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
> > > > > with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
> > > > > an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
> > > > > in blue.
>
> > > > Indeed and it was substantially more than half of Palestine and
> > > > contained both of its deep water ports.
>
> > > LOL! the sentence below tells the story:
>
> > What are you laughing at, Ratner? Can you articulate it?
>
> I DID, MORON. DO YOU COMPREHEND THE DEFINITION OF "BELOW"?
Yes, it's the opposite of "supra". Think hard now.
What were you laughing at Ratner? Afraid to tell us?
>
> Why do you
>
> > have to refer to some unspecified place "below" without a response to
> > what I say?
>
> THE NEXT SENTENCE IS THE RELEVANT ONE, MORON. UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T
> DRAG YOU BY YOUR NOSE, SO YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.
So you are laughing at your own quotation: "Over 75% of the land
allocated to the Jews was desert." As it's a whine it doesn't seem the
stuff of comedy to me. And as you know I don't trust it's accuracy
without context. Israeli Hasbara operations don't have a reeking
reputation for candor. You've read the manual on the web? If not let
me know, I'll find it for you.
>
>
>
> > > > Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
>
> > > > Which the Jews famously "made bloom".
>
> > > Yes, so?
>
> SO??
So they didn't get a porker in that polk now did they? Even out of
context it doesn't work for you.
>
>
>
> > > A very fruitful desert indeed.
>
> > > What are you saying, moron? that it would have been better to leave
> > > the negev virtually uninhabited? Spoken like a true muslim.
>
> > Miss Ratner, I am saying only that whining about getting desert in the
> > partition of a desert country is very likely disingenuous coming from a
> > Zionist propaganda mill without having been proved.
>
> Whining is IRRELEVANT.
Really now, but that's what your author is doing, whining. What your
author says is therefore irrelevant? Dear me, how odd.
JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION, ARABS REJECTED IT.
Your favorite political scientists have dealt with that, supra.
>
> is very likely disingenuous coming from a Zionist propaganda mill without having been proved.
>
> The above sentence makes NO SENSE. What precisely is it that you are
> suggesting
> needs proof?
Anything from Israeli hasbara designed for American consumption.
However, in this case it's the overall significance of the statistic
about arable vs desert land allocated to the Israelis. That needs
context and documentation. You don't provide it.
I'll fix the sentence for you:
That the Jews actually accepted partition is belied by their behavior
and their ideological history. They never intended to honor their
commitment regardless of what the Arabs did. How's that? Like it now?
The distinction is between a formal and an actual commitment.
Intentions matter. You'll recall the secret protocols to the
Ribbentrop/Molotov pact of 1939.
What needs proof is anything in the hasbara line coming out of Israel
for American consumption. Israel does anything it can to influence
American behavior in the Middle East. As I say my default presumption
is that it's over-all intent is to mislead. Do a search for "Hasbara
Manual". It has a cute cover, partly blue if I recall correctly.
That the jewish portion was 75% desert? If so, go study
> the geography. I know of no serious challenge to that premise. If you
> do, post it here WITH CITATION.
You're asserting it. You have the obligation to go forward with the
evidence. You're not going to get me to buy into hasbara from Israel
which has a history of being seriously disingenuous. It's got to be
documented and provided with appropriate context. My informed
presumption is that it's a pack of lies, propaganda. I don't live in
such a moral universe. I'm offended by it. If you don't believe me
let's look together at the famed Hasbara Handbook which is found on
the web. It's filled with the most disgusting techniques for
hoodwinking the American people since the demise of the Soviet Union.
>
> And you've
>
> > provided nothing which proves it.
>
> > > > In fact a strong argument can be made that almost all of Palestine was
> > > > desert or near desert. If a quarter of the land allocated to the Jews
> > > > was arable, there could not have been a much greater proportion
> > > > allocated to the Arabs from their mere 45% of the whole.
>
> > > completely, utterly illogical. does your puny brain actually think the
> > > immediately arabble portion of arab land is DETERMINED by the
> > > immediately arable portion of jewish land?
>
> > Not at all, Missie. I neither said nor suggested that.
>
> Yes, you did:
>
> > If a quarter of the land allocated to the Jews
> > > > was arable, there could not have been a much greater proportion
> > > > allocated to the Arabs from their mere 45% of the whole.
>
> the key words: "THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MUCH GREATER PROPORTION
> ALLOCATED TO THE ARABS [of arable land]" It's there in black and
> white, H. Live with it
>
> I simply
>
> > said that it is unlikely there was substantial disparity
>
> Right, in your view, because jewish land was 25% arable, somehow that
> makes arab land 25% arable,
Not at all. But it certainly does not mean anything at all out of
context and that's where you put that little quasi-factoid, somewhere
in outer space.
although the NEGEV DESERT was entirely
> included in the jewish portion. Do you know what the population of the
> negev consisted of before israel? a few thousand bedouin. PERIOD. THe
> reason is that IT IS A DESERT. Forget it, H, you are just plain
> warped.
You have just said that the Israelis made the Negev bloom. That which
has been made to bloom is arable by definition. And don't forget that
it's been very useful for airforce bases and weapons tests and nuclear
facilities. These Israelis really think ahead. It's the focusing
effect of ideology Solzhenitsyn speaks of.
>
> and if there
>
> > was it didn't matter as there were other compensations, viz., more
> > acreage and the port cities. And I'll go further and point out that
> > the Jews were a minority on the land in any event.
>
> This grows tiring:
You tire when in a corner. You should learn rope a dope.
>
> "At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a
> majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus
> 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to
> them by the [partition] resolution and in Jerusalem."
Any complaints about that factor?
>
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html#e
>
>
>
> > How does that happen - is
>
> > > it some psychic force where some land speaks to other land? The negev,
> > > which is THE desert of palestine, was exclusively in the jewish
> > > portion, so how your defective neurons conclude that the arable
> > > portion of the arab land was 25% is anyone's guess.
>
> > > LET US NOTICE THAT THE MORON IS STILL AVOIDING HIS MIS-STATEMENT
> > > REGARDING THE PARTITION AGREEMENT.
I haven't made one. You miss the meaning of lots of things.
> > And let us all notice that Miss Ratner again has her panties all
> > bunched up and her left pinky on the caps key.
>
> No possible comeback for poor H.
It's called psychological analysis, Ratner. Even novelists indulge
it.
Clip pending the morrow.
dsharavi
> > IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
> > IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> > AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> > HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
> *formally* accepted partition.
"Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
chose not to."
From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <a5786d86-ef26-4aa6-
ad50-10f...@e12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
[flush Meirsheimer & Walt naareshkeit]
Deborah
HHW
> > > IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
> > > IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> > > AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> > > HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
>
> On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
> > *formally* accepted partition.
>
> "Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> chose not to."
These two quotes from me are fully consistent. This is explained below
by Mearsheimer and Walt who are unfortunately not quite as eloquent as
I am.
> From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:37:09 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <a5786d86-ef26-4aa6-
> ad50-10f7f3244...@e12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>
Listen carefully now, DEBORAH. This is the truth of the matter:
Ben Cramer
>i wish i understood,
So do we.
drahcir
> On Dec 1, 8:40 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 2:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip for focus>
>
> > I am here going to have fun with H for awhile and reply to his
> > nonsense until I get bored.
>
> Such a powerful opening gambit, Richard; you prepare your bug-out
> justification before you begin.
>
> "Why use two words when ten will do?" (Federico Fellini)
you have learned that lesson better than any poster here.
>
> IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
>
> > IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> > AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> > HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
>
> This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
> *formally* accepted partition.
oh, now all of a sudden the deal rests on "formally". Here's what you
said, H:
> > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > chose not to.
At this point I am very happy to simply let readers decide who is
misrepresenting what you said.
In fact they did it twice, in 1937 and
> 1947. I've acknowledged it over and over. They just didn't do it
> honestly.
Ooops, now it's not "formally", it's "honestly". i wonder what it will
be a few lines down.
SIMPLE FACT. HAD ARABS ACCEPTED PARTITION, THERE WOULD BE NO OPENING
FOR VIOLENCE FROM EITHER SIDE. PERIOD.
>
> IS IT POSSIBLE TO FIND 6 BOOKS ABOUT ISRAEL THAT DO
>
> > NOT MENTION THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION AND ARABS REJECTED IT, OR IS
> > THIS ONE MORE HHW LIE?
>
> Listen carefully now, Richard. This is the truth of the matter:
Hmmm, if it springs from H's computer, how can it be truth? i don't
get it...
<snip the idiot's quote from M&W, a book he knows I do not accept
because it is unaccepted by the vast majority of peer reviewers>
If that's all you got, H, you got nothin'.
Hearsay.
>
> > Psst, hey H, are you that far gone that you think the above is serving
> > any purpose except making anyone who may have had the slightest doubt
> > as to what an ass you are convinced?
>
> "The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest." (Id.,
> Jabotinsky, 1923)
>
> "There is no such thing as a Palestinian." (Id., Golda Meir)
She was right. She was right in the sense that palestine never was a
country, and she was right in that if considered less strictly, the
term applies to anyone living in palestine, no just arabs.
>
> Clip
>
> > > > recently, plus lots of stuff in the
>
> > > > > journals. I've been following these issues for forty years in the
> > > > > press and periodicals, and what do you try to parrot? What else? An
> > > > > Israeli hasbara operation specializing in "Zionist education"-- based
> > > > > in Israel. Zionist education is ideological education, the most
> > > > > partizan pedagogy yet devised by mankind short of its religious cousin
> > > > > which fueled things like Crusades and the colonization of Latin
> > > > > America.
>
> > > > notice not word one about 1947.
>
> > > There are eloquent and charming "words" about 1947 in my post unless
> > > you have deleted them below. We'll see.
>
> > I don't snip without signification.
>
> That's not true,
I have asked you before to prove it by citing just one example, and
you go on merrily saying it, as you do with all your assertions,
somehow presuming that you can throw around accusations without having
to support them. You are a simple liar.
but you don't do it all the time like some of the
> cowards here.
I NEVER DO IT. YOU ARE A LIAR. CITE ONE EXAMPLE OR ADMIT YOU ARE A
LIAR. As if there is a chance that will happen.
>
>
>
> > > Suddenly we are hearing about H's
>
> > > > thoughts on topics as far-flung as hasbara and zionist education
> > > > including, hehe, "partizan pedagogy", the Crusades, and Latin
> > > > America!!
>
> Must I root out the quote from Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to the
> effect that the famed slaughter in Macbeth was the work of petty
> criminals unable to achieve economies of scale as they were not
> informed and justified by ideology? Why don't you look it up yourself.
> You need to reflect on what you're taught here.
H waxes poetic. This erudition from the ignoramus who said:
> > > > > Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > > > chose not to.
And now dances around saying he meant formal acceptance, honest
acceptance, green acceptance, blue acceptance, the erudite lying
ignoramus who doesn't have and never had the courage to admit error -
he tries to fix it with more lies and just comes out looking pathetic.
>
>
>
> > > All probative, all devastating, and none of which you have refuted so
> > > far.
>
> > You want refutation? fine. They're all bullshit. Done. In the future,
> > please try to refrain from being so completely stupid as to request
> > "refutation" of simple, unsupported blather.
>
> You just don't get it. I made a reference to the role of ideology in
> human history,
I don't give a shit about "human history". We are discussing whether
or not jews accepted partition, PERIOD. It is crucial, because if they
did, all of your bullshit makes NO SENSE, since after their
acceptance, had arabs accepted, there would be no violence, no devious
plans, nothing. Therefore, all of your crap is illogical. I have made
this point in this group to you any number of times, and you always
ignore it or dance around it. The group sees that - members are not
blind. You will ignore it here, too, but I want to keep reminding you
of your character, LIAR.
Here comes more insufferable blather:
one which any broadly educated reader would have picked
> up immediately. Political ideology and the governments of nation
> states are the two most dangerous engines of destruction ever created
> by mankind. They have magnified man's capacity for evil a thousand
> fold. Do look up Solzhenitsyn on Macbeth. Look up "Death by
> Government" and "Lethal Politics". While you're doing that give some
> thought to the fact that Israeli policy is driven by ideology, a nasty
> one with a record of achieving those economies.
>
> > > > > > On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted
> > > > > > with a 2/3 majority to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and
> > > > > > an Arab state.(1) The Jews were to be granted what appears on the map
> > > > > > in blue.
>
> > > > > Indeed and it was substantially more than half of Palestine and
> > > > > contained both of its deep water ports.
>
> > > > LOL! the sentence below tells the story:
>
> > > What are you laughing at, Ratner? Can you articulate it?
>
> > I DID, MORON. DO YOU COMPREHEND THE DEFINITION OF "BELOW"?
>
> Yes, it's the opposite of "supra". Think hard now.
>
> What were you laughing at Ratner? Afraid to tell us?
You senile oaf, you simply don't remember. Accept your deficiencies
and don't be a grumpy old senile oaf, will you?
>
>
>
> > Why do you
>
> > > have to refer to some unspecified place "below" without a response to
> > > what I say?
>
> > THE NEXT SENTENCE IS THE RELEVANT ONE, MORON. UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T
> > DRAG YOU BY YOUR NOSE, SO YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.
>
> So you are laughing at your own quotation: "Over 75% of the land
> allocated to the Jews was desert." As it's a whine it doesn't seem the
> stuff of comedy to me. And as you know I don't trust it's accuracy
> without context. Israeli Hasbara operations don't have a reeking
> reputation for candor. You've read the manual on the web? If not let
> me know, I'll find it for you.
>
>
>
> > > > > Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
OK, i'll spell it out. You tried to make a point that jews were given
the slight majority of the acreage in partition, and my response was
> > > > > Over 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert.
thereby trumping your allegation. GET IT NOW, YOU OAF?
> > > > > Which the Jews famously "made bloom".
>
> > > > Yes, so?
>
> > SO??
>
> So they didn't get a porker in that polk
What does our 11th president have to do with it, you uneducated,
senile oaf?
now did they? Even out of
> context it doesn't work for you.
They got shit that no one wanted and made something of it. You, sick,
senile oaf that you are, wants to make something terrible of that.
>
>
>
> > > > A very fruitful desert indeed.
>
> > > > What are you saying, moron? that it would have been better to leave
> > > > the negev virtually uninhabited? Spoken like a true muslim.
>
> > > Miss Ratner, I am saying only that whining about getting desert in the
> > > partition of a desert country is very likely disingenuous coming from a
> > > Zionist propaganda mill without having been proved.
>
> > Whining is IRRELEVANT.
>
> Really now, but that's what your author is doing, whining.
WHO CARES?
What your
> author says is therefore irrelevant?
Yes, what the author says about what jews wanted is IRRELEVANT. ALL
THAT IS RELEVANT IS THAT THEY ACCEPTED. The reason you can't
understand is that your brain does not function normally. It is very
sick with plaques. At some point, if you simply accept its
deficiencies, you will be less frustrated.
Dear me, how odd.
>
> JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION, ARABS REJECTED IT.
>
> Your favorite political scientists have dealt with that, supra.
>
Inadmissable - poor source.
sorry, H, go fuck yourself. the 75% desert figure is all over the web
and every reasonable history of israel, including, if memory serves,
in one of my cites. Why don't you just look at a map that shows
topography, and then find the negev desert? see where it falls. I no
more have to prove it further than I have to prove that israel is in
the middle east - it is a commonly accepted fact. If you have
contradictory evidence, it is up to you to prove it. Your desperate
ploy above means you cannot, and therefore LIED YET AGAIN.
More verbose crap below:
Meaningless crap.
>
> although the NEGEV DESERT was entirely
>
> > included in the jewish portion. Do you know what the population of the
> > negev consisted of before israel? a few thousand bedouin. PERIOD. THe
> > reason is that IT IS A DESERT. Forget it, H, you are just plain
> > warped.
>
> You have just said that the Israelis made the Negev bloom. That which
> has been made to bloom is arable by definition.
Correct. Substituting "arable" for "bloom", we get "the israelis made
the desert arable". Do you understand now, or do you need further
explanation?
Wait, I forgot I am dealing with the handicapped. here are the first 3
definitions of 'make" from dictionary.com
1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining
parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of
art.
2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make
trouble; to make war.
3. to cause to be or become; render:
Try number 3.
And don't forget that
> it's been very useful for airforce bases and weapons tests and nuclear
> facilities. These Israelis really think ahead. It's the focusing
> effect of ideology Solzhenitsyn speaks of.
Yet more irrelevant blahblah.
>
>
>
> > and if there
>
> > > was it didn't matter as there were other compensations, viz., more
> > > acreage and the port cities. And I'll go further and point out that
> > > the Jews were a minority on the land in any event.
>
> > This grows tiring:
>
> You tire when in a corner.
H, I have told you that public masturbation is gauche, yet you
continue to do it. suit yourself.
You should learn rope a dope.
sheesh, when will this oaf climax so that we can be relieved of this?
>
>
>
> > "At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a
> > majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus
> > 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to
> > them by the [partition] resolution and in Jerusalem."
>
> Any complaints about that factor?
Above makes no sense. H probably forgot who posted the paragraph
beginning "at the time".
>
>
>
> >http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html#e
>
> > > How does that happen - is
>
> > > > it some psychic force where some land speaks to other land? The negev,
> > > > which is THE desert of palestine, was exclusively in the jewish
> > > > portion, so how your defective neurons conclude that the arable
> > > > portion of the arab land was 25% is anyone's guess.
>
> > > > LET US NOTICE THAT THE MORON IS STILL AVOIDING HIS MIS-STATEMENT
> > > > REGARDING THE PARTITION AGREEMENT.
>
> I haven't made one. You miss the meaning of lots of things.
We'll let readers decide for themselves.
>
> > > And let us all notice that Miss Ratner again has her panties all
> > > bunched up and her left pinky on the caps key.
>
> > No possible comeback for poor H.
>
> It's called psychological analysis, Ratner. Even novelists indulge
> it.
No it's not. it's called a strange idea that referring to me as female
is an insult. The implications of that couldn't be clearer.
>
> Clip pending the morrow.
drahcir
> On Dec 1, 9:07 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 8:40 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
> > > > IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> > > > AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> > > > HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
> > > *formally* accepted partition.
>
> > "Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > chose not to."
>
> These two quotes from me are fully consistent.
Well, except for the fact that they contradict each other, that is
true. HHW can't seem to go through 24 hours without getting caught in
a lie. Is this true outside of newsgroups, too, H?
P.S. Do you have an OCR program, or do you really have nothing better
to do than type out these useless passages?
This is explained below
> by Mearsheimer and Walt who are unfortunately not quite as eloquent as
> I am.
Objective people don't care what they have to say, since their work
has been condemned by so many reviewers.
> to announce its intentions to the world. Thus, after commenting in ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
staring at your computer screen until you notice a post by deborah, at
which time you deliver your reply that you and everyone else knows no
one reads? Why not consider doing some volunteer work at your local
hospital or something?
HHW
> > > IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
> > > IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> > > AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> > > HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
>
> On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
> > *formally* accepted partition.
>
> "Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> chose not to."
> From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:37:09 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID: <a5786d86-ef26-4aa6-
>
> [flush Meirsheimer & Walt naareshkeit]
>
> Deborah
drahcir
wow, H, you really got her good with this one.
HHW
Thanks, I thought so.
dsharavi
> > > > > IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
> > > > > IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> > > > > AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> > > > > HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
> > > > *formally* accepted partition.
>
> > > "Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > chose not to."
> > > From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:37:09 -0800 (PST)
> > > Message-ID: <a5786d86-ef26-4aa6-
> > > ad50-10f7f3244...@e12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>
> > > [flush Meirsheimer & Walt naareshkeit]
> > >Deborah
> On Dec 2, 1:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://sharavidoyouenjoybeingacannibal.blogspot.com/2008/09/deborah-s...
On Dec 2, 10:15 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wow, H, you really got her good with this one.
Poor senile old HHW. He probably believes it.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > > > IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
> > > > > IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> > > > > AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> > > > > HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
> > > > *formally* accepted partition.
>
> > > "Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > > chose not to."
> On Dec 1, 10:19 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > These two quotes from me are fully consistent.
> Well, except for the fact that they contradict each other, that is
> true.
That, along with the fact that they're both the usual HHW bullshit.
>HHW can't seem to go through 24 hours without getting caught in
> a lie. Is this true outside of newsgroups, too, H?
Why do you think he elected to practice law--such as that may have
been--in a tiny town where the competition was virtually nil?
> P.S. Do you have an OCR program, or do you really have nothing better
> to do than type out these useless passages?
Probably, like Vera/Mirelle Mahina, it's the latter, although there's
a bit of a problem with someone who is so obviously lazy actually
sitting down to type several paragraphs. Probably he just copies them
from whatever David Duke site he happens to be frequenting.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > > IT SHOULD BE NOTED FROM THE BELOW THAT IT
> > > > IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HHW HAD NO CLUE THAT JEWS ACCEPTED PARTITION
> > > > AND ARABS REJECTED IT, ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS HE READ 6 BOOKS ABOUT THE
> > > > HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
> > On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This is a conscious misrepresentation. I nowhere deny that the Jews
> > > *formally* accepted partition.
> > "Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
> > chose not to."
On Dec 1, 7:19 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> These two quotes from me are fully consistent.
So is your overinflated bullshit, which, alas, as always, you prefer
to actually educating yourself about the subject you are attempting to
address.
Deborah
dsharavi
> Mirelly, are you doing anything with your time these days except
> which time you deliver your reply that you and everyone else knows no
> one reads?
Well, there's Dr Phil every afternoon, which Shaulik watches for Vera
when she can't be bothered. Then there's always the art of self-
stimulation, at which she has claimed to excel.
>Why not consider doing some volunteer work at your local
> hospital or something?
What local hospital? Even if the village had one, who on the local
council would want her there, now that they've all read her blog?
Deborah
dsharavi
> by Mearsheimer and Walt
Sorry I forgot to mention that, in addition to your long-winded
rubbish, M&S are equally are clueless.
Deborah
Ben Cramer
> Mirelly, are you doing anything with your time these days except
> staring at your computer screen until you notice a post by deborah,
One might ask you the same question of your obsession with HHW, RATner.