Realists get it right; culture warriors with conflicts of interest don't, and the U.S. pays the price.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 11:33 AM
Despite the seemingly damning evidence against him, none of us
actually knows for certain if Faisal Shahzad really did try to
detonate a car bomb in Times Square. He has reportedly told
authorities that he did it (which is pretty convincing), the car
involved apparently belonged to him (ditto), and he tried to flee the
country immediately afterwards (hmm...). If I were an attorney I
wouldn’t look forward to defending him, but his guilt or innocence is
ultimately for a jury to decide.
But let’s assume he did, which doesn’t seem to be a very daring
assumption. Obviously, the good news here is that he was an
incompetent bungler: he didn’t know how to build a workable bomb and
he didn’t know how to cover his tracks. And this seems to be the case
even though he says he received some training from jihadists in
Waziristan. Unfortunately, we can’t assume that all like-minded
individuals will be equally befuddled. Timothy McVeigh and his
associates were hardly world-class master criminals, and look at what
they managed to do in Oklahoma City.
And then there's the question of why he tried to do this. Based on the
still-sketchy information I’ve read so far, it seems likely that he
wanted to kill Americans in New York City because he didn’t like our
killing people in Central Asia. (Most of our victims are suspected
terrorists, but we sometimes kill innocent civilians by mistake).
Whether he was acting alone or in cahoots with Pakistani extremists,
his abortive attack was probably a response to our efforts to
eradicate terrorist groups in Pakistan via drone strikes and other
special operations. In short, he decided to enlist in the "war on
terror," but not on America's side.
If this is correct (and I'm prepared to revise my views as we learn
more about his alleged motives), it would remind us that illegitimate
violence directed at innocent Americans is mostly about what we do and
less about "who we are." (This was also true of the suicide bomber who
killed a cadre of CIA agents in Afghanistan earlier this year). To say
this is not to argue that what the US is doing is necessarily wrong,
however, or to sign up for the "blame America first" crowd. Whether
the current drone war in Pakistan is a good idea is a separate
question that involves both cost-benefit analysis (i.e., on balance,
is it weakening al Qaeda or not?) and moral judgment. And yes, even
realists can worry about morality.
Instead, recognizing "why they hate us" is critical to understanding
the overall price tag associated with America's global military
presence and interventionist foreign policy. When the United States is
waging war in some far corner of the world, some people aren’t going
to like it and will try to make us pay. It's a very good thing that
this guy failed, but it would be naïve to believe that we can maintain
our present global posture and be wholly immune from attacks here at
home.
It also means that we should continue to analyze and debate whether
our current counter-terror strategy is the right one. On the one hand,
one could argue (as this BBC report does), that drone strikes are
disrupting militant leadership and organization in places like
Waziristan, and thus making these organizations less lethal or
effective. The fact that Shahzad seems to have been poorly trained and
forced to act more-or-less on his own could be seen as a sign that
this aspect of our strategy is working.
But on the other hand, our continuing military engagement there also
reinforces the accusation that the United States is engaged in
illegitimate interference in foreign (i.e., Muslim) lands, an argument
that Osama bin Laden has repeatedly emphasized and that appears to
resonate with people like Shahzad. Our ultimate goal, therefore, ought
to be to lower our footprint (including the shadow cast by Predator
and Reaper strikes) as soon as we possibly can.
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On the Times Square terrorist
> Posted By Stephen M. Walt Thursday, May 6, 2010 - 11:33 AM
Clip Walt to say it more bluntly myself:
If terror which can not be suppressed short of turning ourselves into
a totalitarian state and the impossibility of making places like
Afghanistan and Iraq into democracies are the problems, the realistic
and least costly path to serving our interests is obviously to lower
the American profile in the Middle East. The attached study is a
stunning proof of that point. Not only does it prove that the "America-
Must-War-Against-Islam-Itself" arguments are frauds, it makes it clear
that we must begin the deescalation by *negotiating* a reasonable
solution to the most visible cause of hatred against us, the Israeli
occupation and endless creeping annexation on the West Bank and in
East Jerusalem. We must confront our so-called allies and impose a
peace whether they like it or not. Perhaps partially because they
don't like it.
The fact that Israel *wants* all of Palestine is nothing in the
overall calculus as to what the United States must do to serve the
interests of its own people. Nothing! Less than nothiing, it is
positively pernicious. That conflicted, disloyal propagandists for
Zionist expansion do their best to obscure this glaring fact is
additional proof that we have been driven into the morass of
supporting the ideological aims of a foreign country. We're struggling
to no good end and for no good purpose. It's especially nauseating to
see that the ideological aims of this foreign country are both
inherently criminal and in direct conflict with our fundamental
values.
These conflicted, so-called Americans, hammer our political class with
threats while simultaneously saying to us that terrorism springs from
a mentality of eternal Jihad against us, i.e., that terrorists war
against us regardless of our policies because we represent decadence,
sin and apostacy. In other words these conflicted people are
systematically misrepresenting the nature of the fundamental problems
we face.
Count 1
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc9a332f-f3e0-42ce...@r21g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
***
Several problems with your 'analysis'. "Imposing peace" isn't going to end
terrorism against Israel, nor will it end terrorism against the US. Several
groups conducting terrorism against Israel will continue to do so as long as
Israel exists, regardless of the treaties she has signed with any other
nation or sub-national group.
It is not a 'fact' that Israel wants all of Palestine. Israel has repeatedly
tried to make peace with Palestinians based on the principle of 'land for
peace'. Israel has consistently found little traction amongst Palestinian
political leaders and therefore peace deals have always failed. Additionally
there is nothing 'inherently criminal' about Israel's 'ideological aims', so
supporting that foreign country does not conflict with your fundamental
values.
Islamic terrorism does spring from a mentality of Jihad, that's why it's
called 'Islamic Terrorism'. Most Islamic terrorism directed against the US,
like the recent NYC car bombing attempt, has nothing to do with Israel. This
fact is explained in the Victor Davis Hanson article I pointed you to.
In fact you are the conflicted person systematically misrepresenting the
fundamental nature of the problems your country faces. To you it all boils
down to one issue - Israel. To the Islamic terrorists it all boils down to
Islam. Islam creates the justification for employing the tactic of terrorism
to address what are essentially political greivances. The political
greivances list is long, and while Israel is obviously on the list it isn't
the primary motivating force, especially for Al-Quaeda and Taliban motivated
violence. For them - as they have been repeatedly telling you - it is the
presence of US forces on what they consider to be their holy lands.
***
http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
***
The problems with this article are numerous and already mentioned by several
people here. My only additional comment is this essay bases it's conclusions
on pre - 2002 data, therefore it is inadequate as it doesn't include the
enormous rise in Islamic terrorism since then to now, precipated by 9/11.
However I did enjoy reading the part about strong border defense systems
being essential to curbing terrorism. Shortly after this was written Israel
began building her security fence. The sharp decline in suicide bombings
since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at least right
about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a kick in
the (your) pants.
dsharavi
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ***
>
> The problems with this article are numerous and already mentioned by several
> people here. My only additional comment is this essay bases it's conclusions
> on pre - 2002 data, therefore it is inadequate as it doesn't include the
> enormous rise in Islamic terrorism since then to now, precipated by 9/11.
> However I did enjoy reading the part about strong border defense systems
> being essential to curbing terrorism. Shortly after this was written Israel
> began building her security fence. The sharp decline in suicide bombings
> since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at least right
> about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a kick in
> the (your) pants.
Excellent response, Count. You've said most of what needed to be
said.
Deborah
Count 1
Excellent response, Count. You've said most of what needed to be
said.
Deborah
***
Careful... he'll accuse you of being me, then Mirelle will pipe in and say
she's been aware of this fact for quite some time.
Thanks Deb.
dsharavi
Very welcome. But what if he accuses you of being a Mirelle forgery?
Deborah
Count 1
"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08d219ee-310c-4253...@h20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Deborah
***
Shhh! I told you not to tell anyone.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ***
>
> The problems with this article are numerous and already mentioned by several
> people here.
You just can't think of any right now?
My only additional comment is this essay bases it's conclusions
> on pre - 2002 data, therefore it is inadequate as it doesn't include the
> enormous rise in Islamic terrorism since then to now, precipated by 9/11.
You will no doubt appreciate the fact that the author is bringing it
up to date in book form. My understanding is that the thesis has not
changed.
> However I did enjoy reading the part about strong border defense systems
> being essential to curbing terrorism.
Yeah, but you need to get the defense systems on the border if you're
to negotiate a treaty of peace.
Shortly after this was written Israel
> began building her security fence.
You mean the apartheid wall?
The sharp decline in suicide bombings
> since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at least right
> about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a kick in
> the (your) pants.
Did YOU think that the wall would have no effect on suicide bombings?
I didn't. Did you think that the wall had only one purpose? No one
else does.
You might try responding to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have
anything to do with the wall. No one else has.
Bolt Upright
Unlikely. Mirelle had more class than C(o)unt1 could ever hope for.
The Peeler
"Mirelle"? Must have been another ridiculous dumb Nazi pig like you, if YOU
praise her, Dolt Forever Unright! LOL
coaste...@yahoo.com
Far more. First of all she's honest and far better informed. She
retired from these groups a winner.
drahcir
LOL! As if there's a chance you truly believe that. Pathetic loser
can't even see how silly he makes himself look.
Count 1
> since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at least
> right
> about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a kick
> in
> the (your) pants.
Did YOU think that the wall would have no effect on suicide bombings?
***
??
I didn't.
***
You probably didn't even know about it until I educated you on the topic.
Did you think that the wall had only one purpose? No one
else does.
***
The security fence serves one primary purpose - to keep Israel safe from the
Islamically motivated baboons who think blowing up buses is an appropriate
response to political greivances
You might try responding to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have
anything to do with the wall. No one else has.
***
Several people have, you simply lack the intellectual capacity to address
them.
Count 1
***
Tell ya what, if you retire now I'll declare you a winner too. Deal?
Bolt Upright
coaste...@yahoo.com
Count 1
"Bolt Upright" <Nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:f092e$4bf471ae$cf701db7$31...@PRIMUS.CA...
Some people's scorn can be worn as a badge of honour.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Mirelle drove you people crazy for several years. She's still working
in the movement, fighting the good fight.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You'd like that, but I'm here until there is a final settlement with
the Palestinians.
drahcir
wrote:
I see you're a wishful thinker. Anyway, H, without you, this group
would have no comedy. Don't ever go.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Bolt Upright" <Nob...@home.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f092e$4bf471ae$cf701db7$31...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19/05/2010 6:02 PM, Count 1 wrote:
> >>news:d83b8133-06f0-4a84...@m31g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 19, 10:20 am, Bolt Upright<Nob...@home.com> wrote:
> >>> On 18/05/2010 8:30 PM, dsharavi wrote:
>
> >>>> On May 18, 3:30 pm, "Count 1"<omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Excellent response, Count. You've said most of what needed to be
> >>>>> said.
>
> >>>>> Deborah
> >>>>> ***
>
> >>>>> Careful... he'll accuse you of being me, then Mirelle will pipe in and
> >>>>> say
> >>>>> she's been aware of this fact for quite some time.
> >>>>> Thanks Deb.
>
> >>>> Very welcome. But what if he accuses you of being a Mirelle forgery?
>
> >>>> Deborah
>
> >>> Unlikely. Mirelle had more class than C(o)unt1 could ever hope for.
>
> >> Far more. First of all she's honest and far better informed. She
> >> retired from these groups a winner.
> >> ***
>
> >> Tell ya what, if you retire now I'll declare you a winner too. Deal?
>
> > There's those of us that declared you a weiner quite a while back,
> > C(o)unt.
>
> Some people's scorn can be worn as a badge of honour.
These people are so obviously contemptible. They say nothing about the
issues. They try only to deflect from them. What they say about
individual opponents doesn't matter. The readers know better. In the
early days I was read two or three hundred times a week. Ratner and
sharavi were doing exactly what they do now. Now I'm read three
thousand times a week, sometimes four thousand. And the trend is up.
Yes, it's a badge of honor in the face of their filth. And in
retribution Miss Ratner has paid her personal price whether she admits
it or not.
drahcir
wrote:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
She's still working
> in the movement, fighting the good fight.
Pathetic doesn't begin to describe you, you poor, withered, useless
creature.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> The sharp decline in suicide bombings
>
> > since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at least
> > right
> > about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a kick
> > in
> > the (your) pants.
>
>
> ??
Having a little problem here with "intellectual capacity"?
Did YOU think that the wall was erected solely or even primarily to
curb suicide bombings and that it was meant to be a "temporary"
measure? Did YOU believe those lies?
Clip gratuitous and false ad hominem.
> Did you think that the wall had only one purpose? No one
> else does.
> ***
>
> The security fence serves one primary purpose - to keep Israel safe from the
> Islamically motivated baboons who think blowing up buses is an appropriate
> response to political greivances
The primary purpose of the Apartheid Wall was and remains strategic,
to anticipate borders in a final settlement and to bantustanize the
Palestinian people so as to control them permanently, in other words
to deny them an independent state. Their "greivances" are not
political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. And there is nothing
"islamic" about resisting the theft of your homeland. Its a defensive
war of national resistance. And finally, tell us just what is the
difference between bombing buses and bombing civilian neighborhoods?
Tell us, if the Palestinians are baboons for doing the former, what
are the Israelis for doing the latter to a defenseless, imprisoned
population? Snakes? Insects? Nazis?
> You might try responding to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have
> anything to do with the wall. No one else has.
> ***
>
> Several people have, you simply lack the intellectual capacity to address
> them.
On the question of intellectual capacity, why is that YOU don't
respond to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have anything to do
with the wall?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Bolt Upright" <Nob...@home.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f092e$4bf471ae$cf701db7$31...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19/05/2010 6:02 PM, Count 1 wrote:
> >>news:d83b8133-06f0-4a84...@m31g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 19, 10:20 am, Bolt Upright<Nob...@home.com> wrote:
> >>> On 18/05/2010 8:30 PM, dsharavi wrote:
>
> >>>> On May 18, 3:30 pm, "Count 1"<omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Excellent response, Count. You've said most of what needed to be
> >>>>> said.
>
> >>>>> Deborah
> >>>>> ***
>
> >>>>> Careful... he'll accuse you of being me, then Mirelle will pipe in and
> >>>>> say
> >>>>> she's been aware of this fact for quite some time.
> >>>>> Thanks Deb.
>
> >>>> Very welcome. But what if he accuses you of being a Mirelle forgery?
>
> >>>> Deborah
>
> >>> Unlikely. Mirelle had more class than C(o)unt1 could ever hope for.
>
> >> Far more. First of all she's honest and far better informed. She
> >> retired from these groups a winner.
> >> ***
>
> >> Tell ya what, if you retire now I'll declare you a winner too. Deal?
>
> > There's those of us that declared you a weiner quite a while back,
> > C(o)unt.
>
> Some people's scorn can be worn as a badge of honour.
You've got the scorn anyway.
coaste...@yahoo.com
She's still working in the movement, fighting the good fight, the
fight that you are obviously losing and helpless to do anything about
it.
drahcir
What seems obvious to a masturbating hallucinator like you is usually
in fact otherwise. You've fled from roughly half the recent threads
you and I have discoursed in. There's a reason, H. That reason is that
you are a defenseless weakling. You're defenseless because you have a
nasty habit of lying, and your lies are rather inept, so you get
caught. Anyone can review the threads - they're the ones your name no
longer shows up in.
drahcir
wrote:
ROFLMAO! To think that something like you actually exists is testament
only to the remarkable potential of the human mind.
Count 1
On May 19, 4:36 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The sharp decline in suicide bombings
>
> > since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at least
> > right
> > about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a
> > kick
> > in
> > the (your) pants.
>
> Did YOU think that the wall would have no effect on suicide bombings? I
> didn't.
>
> ??
Having a little problem here with "intellectual capacity"?
Did YOU think that the wall was erected solely or even primarily to
curb suicide bombings and that it was meant to be a "temporary"
measure? Did YOU believe those lies?
***
If Palestinian terrorists weren't in the picture, Israel never would have
gone to the effort to build a security fence, and time will tell if the
condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not. Do you think the
security fence has curbed terrorism? Are you saddened that Islamic
terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel?
Clip gratuitous and false ad hominem.
> Did you think that the wall had only one purpose? No one
> else does.
> ***
>
> The security fence serves one primary purpose - to keep Israel safe from
> the
> Islamically motivated baboons who think blowing up buses is an appropriate
> response to political greivances
The primary purpose of the Apartheid Wall was and remains strategic,
to anticipate borders in a final settlement and to bantustanize the
Palestinian people so as to control them permanently, in other words
to deny them an independent state.
***
Even for those opposed to the security fence they recognize it as the first
step towards permanent borders, hardly to deny an independent state, but
rather to show the Palestinians what their anticipated border with Israel
will look like. Did you know Qureia's family helped build it? They
supplied some of the concrete.
***
Their "greivances" are not
political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
***
There was no ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That is a lie you must give up
if you want a serious discussion. The first three sentences of your
paragraph literally make no sense, and there is no such thing as 'the
Naqba' - that is Palestinian propaganda. And the Palestinians have not been
at war with the Jews since 1947. If that was the case there would be no
Palestinians left.
***
And there is nothing
"islamic" about resisting the theft of your homeland. Its a defensive
war of national resistance. And finally, tell us just what is the
difference between bombing buses and bombing civilian neighborhoods?
Tell us, if the Palestinians are baboons for doing the former, what
are the Israelis for doing the latter to a defenseless, imprisoned
population? Snakes? Insects? Nazis?
***
You can't equate terrorism with military interventions. Israel doesn't
target civilians, there are standing orders in the IDF disallowing it.
Trying to create a moral equivalence between Islamic terrorists and
uniformed soldiers following the orders of a democratically elected
government is ludicrous.
On top of that, Israel doesn't bomb civilian neighborhoods. They bomb hard
military targets. When Hamas and the various other groups use civilians as
shields they change the nature of the target from 'civilian' to 'military'.
And we know you can't deny Hamas and other groups use their own people as
shields, they are proud of the tactic.
> You might try responding to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have
> anything to do with the wall. No one else has.
> ***
>
> Several people have, you simply lack the intellectual capacity to address
> them.
On the question of intellectual capacity, why is that YOU don't
respond to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have anything to do
with the wall?
***
I gave you my thoughts on the contents of the essay quite some time ago. You
pick so many losing fights you're getting confused. And you are quite wrong
that Pape's essay doesn't have anything to do with Israel's security fence.
Pape clearly identifies one method of reducing terrorism - a strong defense.
That's what the security fence is and a reduction of terrorism is what it
has accomplished.
Count 1
***
Are you drunk again? What makes you think you're read 3000 times a week? Do
you really think people come to these boards to seek out your wisdom?
FYI, I'd much rather people say nothing about the issues then lie about them
constantly - like you do. In just about every post you make your ignorance
is demonstrated. Who captured Shalit? Who occupied Gaza pre 1967? What does
Hamas say about peace with Israel? Who was dancing on 9/11? What did
Netanyahu really say about 9/11 and how it would affect Israel? And that
list is just the most recent blunders you've made. Going through your
history it's quite clear you know nothing about the issues.
Count 1
***
Of course I do, it's common for weaklings to scorn what they fear.
Bolt Upright
Honour would seem to be a scarce commodity on your side of the house,
C(o)unt. Granted there's a couple of fruitcakes on this side as well,
but they seem to be a preponderance among the pro-ziothug crew.
Bolt Upright
Who cares? As a serving soldier in an oppression force He was seized by
the people he was oppressing.
Who occupied Gaza pre 1967?
Nobody. It was Egyptian soil largely populated with refugees from
occupied Palestine. It was Egyptian territory and under Egyptian control
pre-1957.
What does
> Hamas say about peace with Israel?
Well if they wanted to change their charter, wouldn't they need their
*freely elected* parliamentarians, most of whom are languishing in izzie
jails for the "crime" of being their electorate's democratic choice. It
seems that the "democratic" (tee-hee) zionists didn't happen to like the
folks that the Palestinians voted for in izzie-demanded elections, so
they rounded them up and threw them in the slam! How the fuck are they
supposed to alter their charter when they are all in the calabozo? Come
to think of it, why on earth would they want to, given the circumstances?
Who was dancing on 9/11? What did
> Netanyahu really say about 9/11 and how it would affect Israel?
No famous idea, but given Benny Flamingyahoo's track record, I'd
guarantee that it was a lie. Did you know that Ben Cramer believes it to
be a genetic flaw? Given the BS that gets posted here by the usual
suspects, Ben may well be on to something.
Bolt Upright
<SMAK!>
"Fence"�? Do you also blather about "The Berlin "Fence" " or perhaps
"The Great "Fence" of China"?
That fucking land-thieving monstrosity is a *WALL*, and you bloody well
know it!
one primary purpose -
to steal more turf.
<flush lies>
>
> On top of that, Israel doesn't bomb civilian neighborhoods. They bomb hard
> military targets.
Oh, really? Like they did in Gaza, Beirut and South Lebanon?
<remaining BS b'rissed with pinking shears>
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d17b79cf-be24-4f17...@p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 4:36 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The sharp decline in suicide bombings
>
> > > since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at least
> > > right
> > > about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a
> > > kick
> > > in
> > > the (your) pants.
>
> > Did YOU think that the wall would have no effect on suicide bombings? I
> > didn't.
>
> > ??
>
> Having a little problem here with "intellectual capacity"?
>
> Did YOU think that the wall was erected solely or even primarily to
> curb suicide bombings and that it was meant to be a "temporary"
> measure? Did YOU believe those lies?
> ***
>
> If Palestinian terrorists weren't in the picture, Israel never would have
> gone to the effort to build a security fence,
Of course not. No Palestinians, no wall. Obviously. No Palestinians? A
Greater Israel. Clear as crystal.
and time will tell if the
> condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
It's a lie. Whether it's a lie which benefits Israel expansionism will
depend on the political courage of President Barak Obama. I'm betting
on his courage.
Do you think the
> security fence has curbed terrorism?
It stopped suicide terrorism within Israel.
Are you saddened that Islamic
> terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel?
Are you saddened by the Goldstone Report?
> Clip gratuitous and false ad hominem.
>
> > Did you think that the wall had only one purpose? No one
> > else does.
> > ***
>
> > The security fence serves one primary purpose - to keep Israel safe from
> > the
> > Islamically motivated baboons who think blowing up buses is an appropriate
> > response to political greivances
>
> The primary purpose of the Apartheid Wall was and remains strategic,
> to anticipate borders in a final settlement and to bantustanize the
> Palestinian people so as to control them permanently, in other words
> to deny them an independent state.
> ***
>
> Even for those opposed to the security fence they recognize it as the first
> step towards permanent borders,
There are simply no objective observers who believe that the first
step toward negotiated borders is to build a concrete wall
unilaterally on what the World Court determines to be Palestinian
land, especially given the fact that the Israelis already have 78% of
the country? Where do you get these weird ideas? And why do your Anglo
Saxon ideas always track the Israeli and American Zionist position
perfectly?
hardly to deny an independent state, but
> rather to show the Palestinians what their anticipated border with Israel
> will look like.
Look at this Zionist arrogance from the faux "Anglo Saxon" in Alberta.
It's for ISRAEL(!?) to unilaterally "show" the Palestinians their new
border? Don't you even see how arrogant that is? And how ethnocentric
and racist?
Did you know Qureia's family helped build it? They
> supplied some of the concrete.
"It's going to be built anyway, eh? Might as well make some money."
Sure I can see the opportunistic impulse. But you don't want to touch
that subject..
>
> ***
> Their "greivances" are not
> political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
> They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
> ***
>
> There was no ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That is a lie you must give up
> if you want a serious discussion.
Have you read the academic monograph focused in its entirety on that
single series of events by the distinguished Israeli historian, Ilan
Pappe? He describes its origins and its planning over a period of ten
years in great detail. He takes it city by city, village by village
through its entire course. It is mostly based on Israeli government
documents. How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
Benny Morris? He was the *first* to describe the ethnic cleansing of
Palestine. He did it in quite some detail. Reputable academics don't
deny it any more. Nor do honest intellectuals who've read about the
period. You're not going to find anyone on sophisticated American or
Canadian campuses except perhaps a few Jewish activists who believes
what you do or even say that they do. Only a few people like you,
perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of malice, reject the Naqba as
factual and cling to the traditional Israeli historiography which
romanticized 1948 and claimed that the Arabs left voluntarily, not
under threat, and at the demand of their own leadership. Now THAT was
the lie. Have you read Oxford Professor Avi Shlaim's account of it?
Really now, shouldn't your first obligation be to yourself. Lying for
any cause is immoral, especially when it covers up one of the great
20th Century Crimes Against Humanity.
The first three sentences of your
> paragraph literally make no sense, and there is no such thing as 'the
> Naqba' - that is Palestinian propaganda. And the Palestinians have not been
> at war with the Jews since 1947. If that was the case there would be no
> Palestinians left.
Here's my passage:
> Their "greivances" are not
> political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
> They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Naqba, by the way is simply the Arabic word for CATASTROPHE. That's
their description of what happened to them at the hands of the Jews in
1948. It's up to them to describe it, not you. You have a conflict of
interest.
When you read Professor Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of
Palestine, you will discover that Palestine's Jewish leadership
developed the plans for the expulsion of the Arabs from the country
over a period of ten years. Though it wasn't talked about too much in
public for obvious reasons; it had been a Zionist objective since the
late 19th Century. The plan went through four versions, A, B, C, and
D., the process having begun in the 1930s. The fourth version, Plan D
or "Dalet," wasn't even quite finished when in December, 1947 the
Yishuv military organizations began "practicing" driving people from
their villages, dynamiting the homes and planting the ruins with land
mines to prevent return. For the most part the women, children and
elderly were forced to walk to Gaza, to Lebanon, to the West Bank. The
military age men were separated and imprisoned in barbed wire camps
and then and then taken to the border in trucks. Sometimes families
were never reunited. All over the country villages were attacked at
night, usually from three sides, leaving the side toward the desired
flight out of the country open. The troops used explosives to blow
open the doors and shot indiscriminately through doors and windows to
terrorize the people into flight. Often there was some resistance but
the Arabs seldom had anything but a few old rifles. If people refused
to leave their homes were blown up with them in it. That often
happened at night while the people were asleep. There were lots of
shootings. They were designed to instill fear. There were also
something like a dozen major massacres in the process. Deir Yasin was
one of the early ones, Tantara another. Haifa was brutal chaos with
the Jews on the high ground above the harbor firing into and mortaring
panicked crowds on the water front. The scene was gruesome. By the
time of Israel's declaration of independence on May 15th of 1948
something like a quarter of a million Palestinians had already been
driven out of the country by the Hagganah and other Jishuv militias.
In all some eleven Arab cities and roughly four hundred villages were
subject to expulsions and the total driven from the country reached
750,000. In 1967 another quarter of a million were added, driven out
of the Golan and the West Bank. This was policy, Count, criminal
policy. It was state terror, no more no less. But it was only the
beginning. The Resistance began almost immediately and has never
stopped, never given up. It gets stronger and stronger. It's no longer
an option to occupy Lebanon or to bomb massed civilians in Gaza. The
criminals involved are going to be indicted.
As I said above,
> They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Israel has no hope of annexing an inch of the West Bank or East
Jerusalem except through a peace treaty. Virtually the entire Western
World is already agreed as to its terms. You know what they are. You
know that the Wall is designed to prevent that from happening.
Eventually Israel will have to cave. That will happen when it becomes
clear to the Israeli people that the costs and existential dangers of
continuing this ongoing Zionist criminal expansion exceeds the value
of territorial benefit. It will also happen when the Jewish Community
in America come to realize that the Nuclear Arms Race Israel started
in the Middle has the capacity to result in the incineration of New
York,, Palm Beach, Los Angeles or San Francisco and there is virtually
nothing we can do about it short of setting up a Soviet style
autarchic state with no commercial contact with the outer world.
>
> ***
> And there is nothing
> "islamic" about resisting the theft of your homeland. Its a defensive
> war of national resistance. And finally, tell us just what is the
> difference between bombing buses and bombing civilian neighborhoods?
> Tell us, if the Palestinians are baboons for doing the former, what
> are the Israelis for doing the latter to a defenseless, imprisoned
> population? Snakes? Insects? Nazis?
> ***
>
> You can't equate terrorism with military interventions.
I think you've been to college. Did you study engineering or geology
for Chrissake. What happened to the "liberal" aspect of your
education? Look up "state terrorism" and once you've done that don't
come back here wanting to pick nits.
Israel doesn't
> target civilians,
Bullshit. We watched it on videos for three weeks. That beautiful
white phosphorus bursts had footprints the size of football fields.
Unless you are sleep walking you can't shell crammed civilian areas
without "targeting them". Read the damned law. Read the Goldstone
Report. It's okay, it's double spaced and only about 400 pages. It's a
page turner. And it's on line. I've read it but haven't done anything
with it yet. Hey, you and I could go through it paragraph by
paragraph. We can savor exactly what the great Jewish Judge says about
this "not targeting civilians" claim of yours.
there are standing orders in the IDF disallowing it.
So what? That's for public consumption. They have two systems. You
don't read enough. Engineering or geology?
> Trying to create a moral equivalence between Islamic terrorists and
> uniformed soldiers following the orders of a democratically elected
> government is ludicrous.
I certainly don't create a moral equivalence between a National
Resistance Movement which has struggled with justice on its side to
regain its homeland from an objectively racist, aggressor state.
That's a no-brainer.
>
> On top of that, Israel doesn't bomb civilian neighborhoods. They bomb hard
> military targets.
You're a deluded or dishonest joke. Read the Goldstone Report. Only an
ideological stooge would post assertions like these here without
having read it.
When Hamas and the various other groups use civilians as
> shields they change the nature of the target from 'civilian' to 'military'.
> And we know you can't deny Hamas and other groups use their own people as
> shields, they are proud of the tactic.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Read
Goldstone and find out through him how the law actually reads. Maybe
you studied marketing?
>
> > You might try responding to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have
> > anything to do with the wall. No one else has.
> > ***
>
> > Several people have, you simply lack the intellectual capacity to address
> > them.
>
> On the question of intellectual capacity, why is that YOU don't
> respond to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have anything to do
> with the wall?
> ***
>
> I gave you my thoughts on the contents of the essay quite some time ago.
The hell you did.
You
> pick so many losing fights you're getting confused.
Are you winning this one? You're doing no better than you ever do.
And you are quite wrong
> that Pape's essay doesn't have anything to do with Israel's security fence.
> Pape clearly identifies one method of reducing terrorism - a strong defense.
> That's what the security fence is and a reduction of terrorism is what it
> has accomplished.
Pape's article doesn't have anything to do with the *legitimacy* of
the Apartheid Wall. He's perfectly right about it's effect so far as
suicide bombing is concerned. The evil in the wall is where it is
located, on Palestinian territory. It could have been built perfectly
legitimately on the border. You've already admitted in mealy mouth
fashion that it did have a non-security purpose. You just don't wan't
to focus on it. Yes, very characteristic of you Anglo Saxons to parrot
all the details of Israeli Hasbara.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Have you stopped beating your shicksa?
What makes you think you're read 3000 times a week?
It varies currently between about 1900 and nearly 4,000. Right now
it's about 2,400. I's fallen as I haven't worked much lately. It ebbs
and flows in directly relation to how much time I put into it.
Do
> you really think people come to these boards to seek out your wisdom?
I wouldn't put it that way but they obviously seek out my posts And
they are mostly lurkers.
Google summarizes the stats for each of its members. Google has lots
of limitations but I like that factor. It's amusing that in the
beginning when I had 400 readers a week Ratner responded just as you
do here. Haha.
>
> FYI, I'd much rather people say nothing about the issues then lie about them
> constantly - like you do.
You'''re afraid of "the issues" and know little of them. You also have
a rigid style which makes you a poor debater. As to "lies" you've
picked that up from Ratner. He's such a mess now days that he's
capable only of ad hominem filth. It does exactly the opposite of what
he thinks with the readership. You can't judge any of this until you
have a far better background and life experience than you do now.
In just about every post you make your ignorance
> is demonstrated. Who captured Shalit? Who occupied Gaza pre 1967? What does
> Hamas say about peace with Israel? Who was dancing on 9/11? What did
> Netanyahu really say about 9/11 and how it would affect Israel? And that
> list is just the most recent blunders you've made. Going through your
> history it's quite clear you know nothing about the issues.
Those "blunders" are in your imagination.Feel free to post what I said
with context and attribution and we'll talk about it. You make
assertions here but don't document them. What I said about Netanyahu,
for example, came directly from TV coverage which I witnessed myself.
It's become part of the culture. Do you actually think you can pick
nits on that?
I like your use of "captured" for Shalit. You're no longer pretending
he was kidnapped. That was really naive. See, you're educable and I'm
your teacher..
And wasn't it a blunder for the Israelis to take Gaza and reacquire
all those refugees they had so meticulously cleansed in 47-48! Aren't
those brilliant Israelis something!
Oh, the guys dancing weren't Mossad? Is that what you're getting at?
Didn't they identify themselves as such when interviewed after release
on Israeli TV? And hadn't they admitted it to American interrogators
during the two months or so before they were released? Where could I
possibly have read that? Surely it's out there don't you think?
You've got to show a blunder before it becomes a blunder. You can't
just assert it. You already screwed up on your "internet origin" for
the dancing on the roof itself and for the Netanyahu quote. You know,
lots of things embarrassing to Israel simply disappear from media
archives. They even disappear from places like youtube. Maybe you are
relying on something like that? But they still tend to be findable.
People have written about them. Come on, one at a time. You post my
blunder and criticize it and I'll respond.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Fear, eh? You're a joke.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On 21/05/2010 6:11 PM, C(o)unt 1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
A genetic defect, eh?
coaste...@yahoo.com
I've reduced you to this in response to a casual comment about the
state of the intra-governmental struggle over the nature of America's
relationship with Israel: "you are obviously losing." By "you" I meant
your side, of course. More of that later.
At the personal level, three years ago you occasionally tried to deal
with the history of Palestine and other such substantive things. Once
in a while you attempted a legitimate argument on some real issue
instead of a parade of insults. It usually didn't pan out as I was
reading a lot at the time and you've never been disciplined as people
come to be with life experience and breadth. That's all gone now. This
filth is the only thing left to you. You know, forgetting about the
morality of it, its salient feature is that absolutely anyone debased
enough can do it. Being reduced to doing what any wretch can do is a
clear sign that you're losing at the personal level. Every time you
make the mistake of deviating from the filth into substance you're
hammered. And any time I choose to take the time to write something
like this you are hammered.
Back to the real struggle: Irrespective of you as a "person," your
side is losing the political war over America's foreign policy
orientation. Almost all of the conflicted Zionist gentlemen who were
everywhere in the government where policy re Israel was being made
during the Bush era are gone. The ones remaining are not influential.
Ross is an example. The Chief of Staff stays out of foreign policy.
The Secretary of State has now formed a firm bond with Obama and his
policies. It's been made clear by the Administration that Israeli
policy and stubbornness are actively injuring American interests in
the Middle East. That's unprecedented. Another great taboo fallen by
the wayside. Little things still go Israel's way. She got some more
money for "Iron Dome" defenses the other day. She still gets her
hardware dole, but the relationship is cold and there are leaks to the
effect that the planning has already gone far beyond the Proximity
Talks, at least two stages further, the last to involve "The Obama
Plan" which has been worked on for the last year under General Jones..
This is based on the realistic presumption that Netanyahu will torpedo
the talks and continue expansion. There are also signs that the US is
coordinating with European leaders on policies regarding Israel.
Ganging up with them was another taboo. There are hints that we may
take different paths in the UN and that a major campaign for a nuclear
free Middle East is in the offing. Washington speaks well of the Saudi
Plan and has built up unprecedented avenues of communication with Arab
states and even with Iran. This was all taboo before the present
administration as was liaison with the major Resistance movements.
That's gone. There is no doubt that our relationship with Israel is
changing and the Administration is driving it even though the Congress
is still intimidated. There is also no doubt that if he hasn't
already, Obama is is committing the outcome of his first term to
prevailing in this struggle. Before him the last President prepared to
put it on the line unambiguously was Dwight David Eisenhower. Obama is
committed. He has the resources in the Administrative Branch alone.
What's at stake is his second term and I believe he has already
decided to go for broke. At worst he could end up a brilliant but
tragic one term President, driven from office by the most wealthy and
powerful ethnic minority in American history. If he succeeds, he saves
Israel from herself and is re-elected by acclamation as a springboard
to a brilliant second term.
Count 1
***
Google stats summaries do not tell you how many people come to read your
posts, they summarize how many times the thread is accessed. If one person
clicks the thread 1000 times Google will report 1000 views - but in reality
it's only one person.
> FYI, I'd much rather people say nothing about the issues then lie about
> them
> constantly - like you do.
You'''re afraid of "the issues" and know little of them. You also have
a rigid style which makes you a poor debater. As to "lies" you've
picked that up from Ratner. He's such a mess now days that he's
capable only of ad hominem filth. It does exactly the opposite of what
he thinks with the readership. You can't judge any of this until you
have a far better background and life experience than you do now.
***
Like I said, I'd much rather people say nothing then lie. You should have
said nothing.
In just about every post you make your ignorance
> is demonstrated. Who captured Shalit? Who occupied Gaza pre 1967? What
> does
> Hamas say about peace with Israel? Who was dancing on 9/11? What did
> Netanyahu really say about 9/11 and how it would affect Israel? And that
> list is just the most recent blunders you've made. Going through your
> history it's quite clear you know nothing about the issues.
Those "blunders" are in your imagination.Feel free to post what I said
with context and attribution and we'll talk about it. You make
assertions here but don't document them. What I said about Netanyahu,
for example, came directly from TV coverage which I witnessed myself.
It's become part of the culture. Do you actually think you can pick
nits on that?
***
Source? (Let's see if you can prove what you say even once)
I like your use of "captured" for Shalit. You're no longer pretending
he was kidnapped. That was really naive. See, you're educable and I'm
your teacher..
***
'Captured' is irrelevant to the legality. He was captured in the process of
being kidnapped.
And wasn't it a blunder for the Israelis to take Gaza and reacquire
all those refugees they had so meticulously cleansed in 47-48! Aren't
those brilliant Israelis something!
***
Again, lying about 'cleansing'.
Oh, the guys dancing weren't Mossad? Is that what you're getting at?
Didn't they identify themselves as such when interviewed after release
on Israeli TV? And hadn't they admitted it to American interrogators
during the two months or so before they were released? Where could I
possibly have read that? Surely it's out there don't you think?
****
If it is then I'm sure you'll be happy to provide a source. If not, then
you're lying again.
***
You've got to show a blunder before it becomes a blunder. You can't
just assert it. You already screwed up on your "internet origin" for
the dancing on the roof itself and for the Netanyahu quote. You know,
lots of things embarrassing to Israel simply disappear from media
archives. They even disappear from places like youtube. Maybe you are
relying on something like that? But they still tend to be findable.
People have written about them. Come on, one at a time. You post my
blunder and criticize it and I'll respond.
***
Start with those two. But somehow I doubt your response will be useful.
Probably just a repeat of your 'do your own research' pattern. That's your
standard cop-out when you can't prove what you say.
Count 1
***
Yep... fear. What else explains your pattern of running from threads when
the going gets too tough?
Count 1
On May 21, 5:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d17b79cf-be24-4f17...@p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 4:36 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The sharp decline in suicide bombings
>
> > > since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at least
> > > right
> > > about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a
> > > kick
> > > in
> > > the (your) pants.
>
> > Did YOU think that the wall would have no effect on suicide bombings? I
> > didn't.
>
> > ??
>
> Having a little problem here with "intellectual capacity"?
>
> Did YOU think that the wall was erected solely or even primarily to
> curb suicide bombings and that it was meant to be a "temporary"
> measure? Did YOU believe those lies?
> ***
>
> If Palestinian terrorists weren't in the picture, Israel never would have
> gone to the effort to build a security fence,
Of course not. No Palestinians, no wall. Obviously. No Palestinians? A
Greater Israel. Clear as crystal.
***
?? You're rambling incoherently again.
and time will tell if the
> condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
It's a lie. Whether it's a lie which benefits Israel expansionism will
depend on the political courage of President Barak Obama. I'm betting
on his courage.
***
So far you're hitting two for two on the dishonesty scale. I sure hope this
gets better.
Do you think the
> security fence has curbed terrorism?
It stopped suicide terrorism within Israel.
***
Good for you. So you can see the virtue.
Are you saddened that Islamic
> terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel?
Are you saddened by the Goldstone Report?
***
Not saddened, disappointed. Largely because given the makeup of the
contributors it was a foregone conclusion that Israel would be blamed, and
disappointed that the media attention focused on Israel rather than the
report's damnation of Hamas as well. Your turn.
> Clip gratuitous and false ad hominem.
>
> > Did you think that the wall had only one purpose? No one
> > else does.
> > ***
>
> > The security fence serves one primary purpose - to keep Israel safe from
> > the
> > Islamically motivated baboons who think blowing up buses is an
> > appropriate
> > response to political greivances
>
> The primary purpose of the Apartheid Wall was and remains strategic,
> to anticipate borders in a final settlement and to bantustanize the
> Palestinian people so as to control them permanently, in other words
> to deny them an independent state.
> ***
>
> Even for those opposed to the security fence they recognize it as the
> first
> step towards permanent borders,
There are simply no objective observers who believe that the first
step toward negotiated borders is to build a concrete wall
unilaterally on what the World Court determines to be Palestinian
land, especially given the fact that the Israelis already have 78% of
the country? Where do you get these weird ideas? And why do your Anglo
Saxon ideas always track the Israeli and American Zionist position
perfectly?
****
Actually there are many objective observers who feel the security fence is a
way of delineating a permanent border. Why do your American ideas always
track perfectly the position of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, and
Syria?
hardly to deny an independent state, but
> rather to show the Palestinians what their anticipated border with Israel
> will look like.
Look at this Zionist arrogance from the faux "Anglo Saxon" in Alberta.
It's for ISRAEL(!?) to unilaterally "show" the Palestinians their new
border? Don't you even see how arrogant that is? And how ethnocentric
and racist?
***
Alberta? I seel you're still having a hard time with NNTP's. It's not
'ethnocentric', 'racist', nor 'arrogant' to realize that Israel has to take
unilateral steps towards a secure peace. Palestinians have rejected peace on
so many occassions Israel naturally feels compelled to act.
Did you know Qureia's family helped build it? They
> supplied some of the concrete.
"It's going to be built anyway, eh? Might as well make some money."
Sure I can see the opportunistic impulse. But you don't want to touch
that subject..
***
You don't want to touch the subject that Palestinian's helped build it.
>
> ***
> Their "greivances" are not
> political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
> They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
> ***
>
> There was no ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That is a lie you must give up
> if you want a serious discussion.
Have you read the academic monograph focused in its entirety on that
single series of events by the distinguished Israeli historian, Ilan
Pappe?
***
Ilan Pappe is a discredited fool fired from his University now relegated to
a backwater school in England. For you to describe his as 'distinguished' is
just another lie.
He describes its origins and its planning over a period of ten
years in great detail. He takes it city by city, village by village
through its entire course. It is mostly based on Israeli government
documents. How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
Benny Morris? He was the *first* to describe the ethnic cleansing of
Palestine. He did it in quite some detail. Reputable academics don't
deny it any more. Nor do honest intellectuals who've read about the
period. You're not going to find anyone on sophisticated American or
Canadian campuses except perhaps a few Jewish activists who believes
what you do or even say that they do. Only a few people like you,
perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of malice, reject the Naqba as
factual and cling to the traditional Israeli historiography which
romanticized 1948 and claimed that the Arabs left voluntarily, not
under threat, and at the demand of their own leadership. Now THAT was
the lie. Have you read Oxford Professor Avi Shlaim's account of it?
Really now, shouldn't your first obligation be to yourself. Lying for
any cause is immoral, especially when it covers up one of the great
20th Century Crimes Against Humanity.
***
Well, I'm glad you agree lying is immoral. Let's see if that revelation gets
you to stop.
The first three sentences of your
> paragraph literally make no sense, and there is no such thing as 'the
> Naqba' - that is Palestinian propaganda. And the Palestinians have not
> been
> at war with the Jews since 1947. If that was the case there would be no
> Palestinians left.
Here's my passage:
> Their "greivances" are not
> political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
> They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Naqba, by the way is simply the Arabic word for CATASTROPHE. That's
their description of what happened to them at the hands of the Jews in
1948. It's up to them to describe it, not you. You have a conflict of
interest.
****
It's up to you to discern if their description is apt. If there was a
catastrophe, they brought in on themselves.
When you read Professor Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of
Palestine, you will discover that Palestine's Jewish leadership
developed the plans for the expulsion of the Arabs from the country
over a period of ten years. Though it wasn't talked about too much in
public for obvious reasons; it had been a Zionist objective since the
late 19th Century. The plan went through four versions, A, B, C, and
D., the process having begun in the 1930s. The fourth version, Plan D
or "Dalet," wasn't even quite finished when in December, 1947 the
Yishuv military organizations began "practicing" driving people from
their villages, dynamiting the homes and planting the ruins with land
mines to prevent return.
****
Have you ever asked yourself the question; "If there was a Plan to expel
arabs from the country over a period of ten years, then why do so many Arabs
remain in Israel?"
Plan Dalet - which you can read at a website I've often sent you to - was a
document outlining the strategy to be used in a time of war. It was
absolutely not a plan for the expulsion of Arabs. You can read the plan
here...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html
.. and you will learn there are different conditions to be used against Arab
population centers who show resistance (fight against Jews) and those who do
not. Plan Dalet was part of the process that moved the various Israeli
fighting forces into a regular army. This document has been used by
propagandists who demonize Israel to make money, but there is no consensus
that it was even widely adopted.
****
I suppose if you're only getting information from the ISM you may believe
the above tripe, but for those of us with a more discerning palate we can
see it is bullshit from the start. Every time I see 'massacre' and 'Deir
Yassin' in the same paragraph I know the writer hasn't done any research.
As I said above,
> They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Israel has no hope of annexing an inch of the West Bank or East
Jerusalem except through a peace treaty. Virtually the entire Western
World is already agreed as to its terms. You know what they are. You
know that the Wall is designed to prevent that from happening.
Eventually Israel will have to cave. That will happen when it becomes
clear to the Israeli people that the costs and existential dangers of
continuing this ongoing Zionist criminal expansion exceeds the value
of territorial benefit. It will also happen when the Jewish Community
in America come to realize that the Nuclear Arms Race Israel started
in the Middle has the capacity to result in the incineration of New
York,, Palm Beach, Los Angeles or San Francisco and there is virtually
nothing we can do about it short of setting up a Soviet style
autarchic state with no commercial contact with the outer world.
****
Eventually the Palestinians are going to have to make peace with Israel,
they've already lost every war they've started. The introduction of
terrorism into the region by Palestinians has only resulted in them losing
more and more at the negotiating table. Eventually it will become clear to
the Palestinians that their tactics have gotten them nowhere and they will
have to become serious partners for peace. Not like Hamas, who is dedicated
to the state's destruction and makes no mystery of that fact. Palestinians
will have to accept the fact that since there was never any movement for a
Palestinian capital in Jerusalem before Israel, there will never be one now.
Palestinians will have to accept that their "refugees" are not returning to
Israel, and that Israel will be allowed to keep land captured in a defensive
war. Eventually the Palestinians will start to cave, but not until their
foriegn enablers like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt put pressure on them to
do so.
> ***
> And there is nothing
> "islamic" about resisting the theft of your homeland. Its a defensive
> war of national resistance. And finally, tell us just what is the
> difference between bombing buses and bombing civilian neighborhoods?
> Tell us, if the Palestinians are baboons for doing the former, what
> are the Israelis for doing the latter to a defenseless, imprisoned
> population? Snakes? Insects? Nazis?
> ***
>
> You can't equate terrorism with military interventions.
I think you've been to college. Did you study engineering or geology
for Chrissake. What happened to the "liberal" aspect of your
education? Look up "state terrorism" and once you've done that don't
come back here wanting to pick nits.
****
You asked for the 'difference' between suicide terrorists on buses and
military interventions by a democratically controlled real army. You figure
it out.
<snip rant>
When Hamas and the various other groups use civilians as
> shields they change the nature of the target from 'civilian' to
> 'military'.
> And we know you can't deny Hamas and other groups use their own people as
> shields, they are proud of the tactic.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Read
Goldstone and find out through him how the law actually reads. Maybe
you studied marketing?
***
What does Goldstone say about Hamas' use of human shields? What does
Goldstone say about Hamas turning a hospital into a military command and
control center? What does Goldstone say about Hamas storing weapons in
homes, in 'densely populated areas'. What does Goldstone say about Fathi
Hammad's admittance of Hamas using human shields?
And if the report does recognize the reality and condemn it all - as it
should - then why do you continue with this lie about 'targetting
civilians'. I know you desperately want to portray the IDF as jack booted
thugs marching through cities slaughtering old people and children, but the
reality is quite different, the reality is Hamas creates civilian casualties
from the tactics it employs.
>
> > You might try responding to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have
> > anything to do with the wall. No one else has.
> > ***
>
> > Several people have, you simply lack the intellectual capacity to
> > address
> > them.
>
> On the question of intellectual capacity, why is that YOU don't
> respond to Pape's central thesis which doesn't have anything to do
> with the wall?
> ***
>
> I gave you my thoughts on the contents of the essay quite some time ago.
The hell you did.
You
> pick so many losing fights you're getting confused.
Are you winning this one? You're doing no better than you ever do.
***
I suspect you're about to run from another thread.
And you are quite wrong
> that Pape's essay doesn't have anything to do with Israel's security
> fence.
> Pape clearly identifies one method of reducing terrorism - a strong
> defense.
> That's what the security fence is and a reduction of terrorism is what it
> has accomplished.
Pape's article doesn't have anything to do with the *legitimacy* of
the Apartheid Wall. He's perfectly right about it's effect so far as
suicide bombing is concerned.
***
Since there is no such thing as an 'apartheid wall' you're right, his essay
doesn't have anything to do with flying pink unicorns either.
The evil in the wall is where it is
located, on Palestinian territory. It could have been built perfectly
legitimately on the border. You've already admitted in mealy mouth
fashion that it did have a non-security purpose. You just don't wan't
to focus on it. Yes, very characteristic of you Anglo Saxons to parrot
all the details of Israeli Hasbara.
***
What border? The one Palestinians have continuously failed to recognize?
However you are quite wrong, the security fence is largely construced along
the 'green line'. There are some deviations to recognize facts on the
ground, but is largely on Israeli land. It's very characteristic of
Palestinian propagandists to diminish the fact that it has served it's
purpose, a purpose which wouldn't be necessary of Palestinians would finally
get serious about peace and statehood.
drahcir
Get a grip. You think that having fled from conversations is
"reducing"? You flee because you lie. That you'd expect me or anyone
else to spend their time reading the below is testament only to how
far gone you are.
coaste...@yahoo.com
The lie came not in the initial statement, but in the follow-up
designed to cover his temporary lapse into candor.
Did you know that Ben Cramer believes it to
> be a genetic flaw?
If there is a marked tendency to lie in a particular ethnic group,
isn't it more likely to be learned behavior which comes from growing
up in the culture? Note, I said, "If".
Given the BS that gets posted here by the usual
> suspects, Ben may well be on to something.
Yes, but something irremediable.
drahcir
wrote:
By this time, silly sideswipes like the above are futile. I have
PROVEN you a liar on so many occasions and repeatedly linked to those
proofs without any refutation from you, that there is no one who reads
this group regularly that can be under any impression other than that
you are completely untrustworthy and dishonest.
He's such a mess now days that he's
> capable only of ad hominem filth.
Another silly lie. I defeat you at will - in fact, that's giving
myself too much credit. You defeat yourself. Got anything to say about
this latest idiocy:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/45550c0930de794e
It's amazing - day in, day out, you lie, attempt in a child's way to
deceive, and make a complete idiot of yourself as above over and over,
and when I or someone else points these things out, you simply drop
out of the thread, only to repeat your blunders. Then you mutter
publicly to yourself about how skilled a debater you are. Any
objective person can only read you for entertainment purposes,
wondering what this blithering idiot will say next.
It does exactly the opposite of what
> he thinks with the readership. You can't judge any of this until you
> have a far better background and life experience than you do now.
Translation: alzheimer's is great - you should try it sometime.
>
> In just about every post you make your ignorance
>
> > is demonstrated. Who captured Shalit? Who occupied Gaza pre 1967? What does
> > Hamas say about peace with Israel? Who was dancing on 9/11? What did
> > Netanyahu really say about 9/11 and how it would affect Israel? And that
> > list is just the most recent blunders you've made. Going through your
> > history it's quite clear you know nothing about the issues.
>
> Those "blunders" are in your imagination.Feel free to post what I said
> with context and attribution and we'll talk about it.
LOL! People are posting your blunders each and every day, but you
ignore them - you pretend they aren't there. Problem is, everyone sees
you pretending and either laughs or winces. You've got one just above
- got anything to say about it?
Enough of this idiot for now....
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 22, 1:50 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Ratner says:
> By this time, silly sideswipes like the above are futile. I have
> PROVEN you a liar on so many occasions and repeatedly linked to those
> proofs without any refutation from you,
Iconoclast replies:
You say these things as part of your effort to defame. It's all that's
left to you as you can not deal with any of the foreign policy or
domestic issues these groups discuss. You've been defeated over and
over again when you strayed from defamation into the realities which
these newsgroups are about.
However, you NEVER will point out an alleged lie specifically. I have
invited you to do it over and over again. Only *you* can identify the
particular passages which you claim are lies. You refuse. Accordingly
your intent is to defame but not to give me a chance to come to grips
with the specific allegations. You refuse to identify them. You've
been doing this for over three years. What can one conclude but that
you are lying about lying? Indeed, if you had caught me lying would
you not be eager to prove it? Flinging ad hominems is your sole and
complete shtick. Wouldn't it be nice for you to be able that you
proved a couple of them?
So, Ratner, here's what I require: the urls to specific, *individual
posts*, which you claim contain lies AND clear identification of the
specific passages you say *are* lies. Without both they can not be
identified. I'm putting this in a desktop file. Every time you make
the accusations in the future I'll give it back to you in updated form.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 22, 3:14 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
About Mirelle, Iconoclast said:
> > > > She's still working in the movement, fighting the good fight, the
> > > > fight that you are obviously losing and helpless to do anything about
> > > > it.
> > > What seems obvious to a masturbating hallucinator like you is usually
> > > in fact otherwise. You've fled from roughly half the recent threads
> > > you and I have discoursed in.
You and I have never sustained "discourse". In fact it's very rare
that you even have common conversations with anyone here. That
requires two more or less civilized people. In fact I say things
mostly about the political issues I'm interested in, almost always in
response to someone else, and you intervene with insults such as the
one above. That sums it up. Ninety-five percent of what you write here
is slander of someone or other. You've been desperately trying to
discredit me in this foul fashion for three years. You do it in hopes
of silencing my criticism of israeli policy and the pernicious
influence of the Israel Lobby, but that's all you do opposite me, and
you do it always in the same inconceivably filthy fashion. I
frequently ignore you. When I do that you say that I have "fled". In
sum, Ratner, you are obsessed with driving me away or discrediting me
with the readers, but you are an abject failure as a debater and a
worse failure as a man, which, as you know, you simply aren't.
You can be cunning in a base sense. I'll grant you a certain modest
level of intelligence, but you are very poorly educated and have no
significant self-starting curiosity. you've accomplished no breadth.
In other words your education has been wasted. You also have no
significant life experience. You've lived the shades-drawn life of a
closeted homosexual, an isolate, some sort of a functional cripple who
must be supported by his family.
There's a reason, H. That reason is that
> > > you are a defenseless weakling. You're defenseless because you have a
> > > nasty habit of lying, and your lies are rather inept, so you get
> > > caught. Anyone can review the threads - they're the ones your name no
> > > longer shows up in.
I've dealt with this.
Clip repetitious filth.
> > I've reduced you
This is substantive analysis. Amateur, of course, but reasonably
thoughtful. You dare not respond as you will give me a platform on
which to continue and also because you have neither the breadth nor
the talent to do so.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Clip miscellaneous debris
Bolt said:
> > > >>> Unlikely. Mirelle had more class than C(o)unt1 could ever hope for.
\
Iconoclast said:
> > > >> Far more. First of all she's honest and far better informed. She
> > > >> retired from these groups a winner.
> > > >> ***
Count 1 said to Iconoclast, displaying his most urgent and heartfelt
desire, said:
> > > >> Tell ya what, if you retire now I'll declare you a winner too. Deal?
Bolt declared Count 1 a "wiener" by nature, to which Count ! said:
> > > Some people's scorn can be worn as a badge of honour.
Iconoclast, referring to the mine run of Zionist movement thugs here
said:
> > These people are so obviously contemptible. They say nothing about the
> > issues. They try only to deflect from them. What they say about
> > individual opponents doesn't matter. The readers know better. In the
> > early days I was read two or three hundred times a week. Ratner and
> > sharavi were doing exactly what they do now. Now (I'm read between
> > 1,900 and 3,500 times a week.)* And the trend is up.
> > Yes, it's a badge of honor in the face of their filth. And in
> > retribution Miss Ratner has paid her personal price whether she admits
> > it or not.
> > ***
* The parenthetical material is an alteration regarding the numbers
after going back to my records.
To which Count 1, the Canadian Anglo Saxon gentleman, said:
> > Are you drunk again?
To which I replied:
> Have you stopped beating your shicksa?
>
> What makes you think you're read 3000 times a week?
>
> It varies currently between about 1900 and (approximately 3,500)*. Right now
> it's about 2,400. I's fallen as I haven't worked much lately. It ebbs
> and flows in directly relation to how much time I put into it.
Again, the numbers are corrected.
Count 1:
> Do you really think people come to these boards to seek out your wisdom?
> I wouldn't put it that way but they obviously seek out my posts And
> they are mostly lurkers.
> Google summarizes the stats for each of its members. Google has lots
> of limitations but I like that factor. It's amusing that in the
> beginning when I had 400 readers a week Ratner responded just as you
> do here. Haha.
> ***
>
> Google stats summaries do not tell you how many people come to read your
> posts, they summarize how many times the thread is accessed. If one person
> clicks the thread 1000 times Google will report 1000 views - but in reality
> it's only one person.
That's not true. The numbers I've given you are for my posts
specifically, not the thread. That's clearly delineated in the stats.
Count 1 said:
> > FYI, I'd much rather people say nothing about the issues then lie about
> > them
> > constantly - like you do.
Iconoclast replied:
> You'''re afraid of "the issues" and know little of them. You also have
> a rigid style which makes you a poor debater. As to "lies" you've
> picked that up from Ratner. He's such a mess now days that he's
> capable only of ad hominem filth. It does exactly the opposite of what
> he thinks with the readership. You can't judge any of this until you
> have a far better background and life experience than you do now.
> ***
>
> Like I said, I'd much rather people say nothing then lie. You should have
> said nothing.
You badly want me to say nothing.
> > In just about every post you make your ignorance
> > is demonstrated. Who captured Shalit? Who occupied Gaza pre 1967? What
> > does Hamas say about peace with Israel? Who was dancing on 9/11? What did
> > Netanyahu really say about 9/11 and how it would affect Israel? And that
> > list is just the most recent blunders you've made. Going through your
> > history it's quite clear you know nothing about the issues.
>
> Those "blunders" are in your imagination.Feel free to post what I said
> with context and attribution and we'll talk about it. You make
> assertions here but don't document them. What I said about Netanyahu,
> for example, came directly from TV coverage which I witnessed myself.
> It's become part of the culture. Do you actually think you can pick
> nits on that?
> ***
>
> Source? (Let's see if you can prove what you say even once)
As I told you, my source is my own experience. You claimed it was a
baseless internet myth. Perhaps you should prove that with a cite.
> I like your use of "captured" for Shalit. You're no longer pretending
> he was kidnapped. That was really naive. See, you're educable and I'm
> your teacher..
> ***
>
> 'Captured' is irrelevant to the legality. He was captured in the process of
> being kidnapped.
Very funny. Of what "legality" do you speak? The war against the
Palestinian People was begun in December of 1947 and has not yet
ended. The Resistance gets stronger. The parties are obviously at war.
You can not get away with pretending that the capture of Shalit was a
civilian crime as if in peacetime.
> And wasn't it a blunder for the Israelis to take Gaza and reacquire
> all those refugees they had so meticulously cleansed in 47-48! Aren't
> those brilliant Israelis something!
> ***
>
> Again, lying about 'cleansing'.
Am I to regurgitate for you the contents of volumes by professional
historians such as Avi Shlaim. Ilan Pappe, Ben-Ami and Benny Morris?
There is no confusion whatever among serious scholars that the Naqba,
the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, took place. You might try reading
on your own instead of parroting the false and discredited traditional
Israeli version. Tell us, whose work to you rely on?
> Oh, the guys dancing weren't Mossad? Is that what you're getting at?
> Didn't they identify themselves as such when interviewed after release
> on Israeli TV? And hadn't they admitted it to American interrogators
> during the two months or so before they were released? Where could I
> possibly have read that? Surely it's out there don't you think?
> ****
>
> If it is then I'm sure you'll be happy to provide a source. If not, then
> you're lying again.
So, you think I must "prove" everything I say or what I say is a lie?
Do you really think that's the way the Anglo Saxon world works? You
world, perhaps, but not ours.
>
> ***
> You've got to show a blunder before it becomes a blunder. You can't
> just assert it. You already screwed up on your "internet origin" for
> the dancing on the roof itself and for the Netanyahu quote. You know,
> lots of things embarrassing to Israel simply disappear from media
> archives. They even disappear from places like youtube. Maybe you are
> relying on something like that? But they still tend to be findable.
> People have written about them. Come on, one at a time. You post my
> blunder and criticize it and I'll respond.
> ***
>
> Start with those two.
No, no. You post what you say is my "blunder" and tell us what you
base it on.. Give me an url to my specific post and identify the
specific language in it that you rely upon. If you do that I'll
respond. If I've made a mistake I'll be happy to say so.
But somehow I doubt your response will be useful.
> Probably just a repeat of your 'do your own research' pattern. That's your
> standard cop-out when you can't prove what you say.
You are not free to make defamatory allegations against me without
demonstrating them. You can't just vaguely suggest their existence
without specifics. To do it you must do your research. If you refuse,
I'll draw my conclusions....
coaste...@yahoo.com
Point out a thread in which I have run from you.
drahcir
wrote:
> On May 22, 7:48 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 22, 3:14 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Clip debris
>
> About Mirelle, Iconoclast said:
>
> > > > > She's still working in the movement, fighting the good fight, the
> > > > > fight that you are obviously losing and helpless to do anything about
> > > > > it.
> > > > What seems obvious to a masturbating hallucinator like you is usually
> > > > in fact otherwise. You've fled from roughly half the recent threads
> > > > you and I have discoursed in.
>
> You and I have never sustained "discourse".
Well, you have a point. What generally happens is that I catch you in
either in a lie or saying something mind-bogglingly stupid, after
which you flee.
In fact it's very rare
> that you even have common conversations with anyone here. That
> requires two more or less civilized people.
H, let's get specific. Exactly like a child, you whined and whined
about how I wouldn't reply to your incredibly stupid "hypo". I let you
whine for a few days, but it grew annoying, so I stomped you into the
ground yet again.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/b8f0848b3191e732
You're fled from that one as sure as the sun will rise in the morning.
You want conversation? Try not lying and not saying unbelievably
stupid things - then you might succeed. Just think about this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/45550c0930de794e
I am having a conversation with a Muslim, and you insert your big
fucking mouth into the conversation for no reason other than to
attempt to "get me". You're feeling your oats, attacking my methods in
the most hallucinatory, dishonest way you can dream up (your new
codeword for this practice is "satirical", but we know better), and
the single point you try to make, namely that I had no business
assuming a motive of the bomber was religion, was, obviously somehow
unnoticed by you, completely accepted and agreed to by my opponent.
How fucking stupid you looked! It was simply beyond belief. H, the
likes of you can't expect to have an extended conversation with me -
you are too stupid, too dishonest, too ignorant of the topics you
attempt to discuss, and too presumptively pompous in your exaggerated
image of yourself and your knowledge.
In fact I say things
> mostly about the political issues I'm interested in, almost always in
> response to someone else, and you intervene with insults such as the
> one above. That sums it up. Ninety-five percent of what you write here
> is slander of someone or other. You've been desperately trying to
> discredit me in this foul fashion for three years. You do it in hopes
> of silencing my criticism of israeli policy and the pernicious
> influence of the Israel Lobby, but that's all you do opposite me, and
> you do it always in the same inconceivably filthy fashion. I
> frequently ignore you. When I do that you say that I have "fled".
No, I say you've fled when you have NO ALTERNATIVE. You are lost and
looking either so utterly foolish or so utterly dishonest that to
continue would only sink you deeper. It has zero to do with your
favorite catchall, "filth", or anything else other than your own
debate ineptitude and your own mendacity. You've got two examples of
the end of the line for you in this post alone. Here are 3 more:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/b31d7b689dd36a7a
There's tens more where those came from. I'm perfectly content to let
readers decide the reason you fled all of these.
In
> sum, Ratner, you are obsessed with driving me away or discrediting me
> with the readers,
The fact that you don't realize that that job was done some time ago
is symptomatic only of your loose grip on reality. I only continue for
the fun of it.
but you are an abject failure as a debater and a
> worse failure as a man, which, as you know, you simply aren't.
You want so badly to hear those words from someone else, but everyone
else here is sane, so you'll shamelessly masturbate to make yourself
feel better.
Oy, again with the endless chatter below.
>
> You can be cunning in a base sense. I'll grant you a certain modest
> level of intelligence, but you are very poorly educated and have no
> significant self-starting curiosity. you've accomplished no breadth.
> In other words your education has been wasted. You also have no
> significant life experience. You've lived the shades-drawn life of a
> closeted homosexual, an isolate, some sort of a functional cripple who
> must be supported by his family.
>
> There's a reason, H. That reason is that
>
> > > > you are a defenseless weakling. You're defenseless because you have a
> > > > nasty habit of lying, and your lies are rather inept, so you get
> > > > caught. Anyone can review the threads - they're the ones your name no
> > > > longer shows up in.
>
> I've dealt with this.
LOL! Well, if fleeing is dealing, ok, you've dealt. I've given you
enough time for tonight, senor el cazado. Buenos noches.
drahcir
wrote:
> On May 22, 3:56 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 22, 1:50 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> Clip debris.
>
> Ratner says:
>
> > By this time, silly sideswipes like the above are futile. I have
> > PROVEN you a liar on so many occasions and repeatedly linked to those
> > proofs without any refutation from you,
>
> Iconoclast replies:
>
> You say these things as part of your effort to defame.
Um, no. I say these things because they are the truth, and you know
they are the truth. I have supported my claims with proof in the form
of links to the conversations where they occurred.
It's all that's
> left to you as you can not deal with any of the foreign policy or
> domestic issues these groups discuss. You've been defeated over and
> over again
Cite one defeat or be proven a liar.
when you strayed from defamation into the realities which
> these newsgroups are about.
>
> However, you NEVER will point out an alleged lie specifically.
That just the alzheimer's talking:
Here's one where you attempted to deceive by ignoring context. I
caught you:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7603588266296075
Here's one where you deliberately lied about what I said, and didn't
even have the courage to do it to my face:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/c10cee18c6ee1f05
Here's another where you tried to deceive by ignoring context:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/70e59d04b030ede3
The list goes on and on and on. It's never-ending. As I have proven
with the above links, you LIED above when you say I never cite your
lies specifically. These links have been provided on many occasions,
as have innumerable others.
I have
> invited you to do it over and over again.
Another lie.
Only *you* can identify the
> particular passages which you claim are lies. You refuse.
You're in lala land, H. The entire group has read my numerous posts
that contain links to your lies. You have not attempted to refute my
citations of those lies - you've fled. Who in this group can read your
denials now and think anything except that you are insane?
Accordingly
> your intent is to defame but not to give me a chance to come to grips
> with the specific allegations.
You've got 3 specific lies above. I've posted the links to those lies
at least ten times. You obviously have no response.
You refuse to identify them.
You're repeating yourself, psycho.
You've
> been doing this for over three years. What can one conclude but that
> you are lying about lying? Indeed, if you had caught me lying would
> you not be eager to prove it? Flinging ad hominems is your sole and
> complete shtick. Wouldn't it be nice for you to be able that you
> proved a couple of them?
>
> So, Ratner, here's what I require: the urls to specific, *individual
> posts*, which you claim contain lies AND clear identification of the
> specific passages you say *are* lies.
LOL! You've had the urls of the above three for well over a month. Cut
the crap, liar.
Without both they can not be
> identified. I'm putting this in a desktop file.
Oooooooh, please NO, NO, NO -- not the DESKTOP FILE!!!!!!!
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!
Every time you make
> the accusations in the future I'll give it back to you in updated form.
Cool. Respond to the three despicable, lying deceptions cited. After
you do, I'll supply some more. I WANT MORE FUN!!
Count 1
> posts, they summarize how many times the thread is accessed. If one person
> clicks the thread 1000 times Google will report 1000 views - but in
> reality
> it's only one person.
That's not true. The numbers I've given you are for my posts
specifically, not the thread. That's clearly delineated in the stats.
***
Prove it.
> > In just about every post you make your ignorance
> > is demonstrated. Who captured Shalit? Who occupied Gaza pre 1967? What
> > does Hamas say about peace with Israel? Who was dancing on 9/11? What
> > did
> > Netanyahu really say about 9/11 and how it would affect Israel? And that
> > list is just the most recent blunders you've made. Going through your
> > history it's quite clear you know nothing about the issues.
>
> Those "blunders" are in your imagination.Feel free to post what I said
> with context and attribution and we'll talk about it. You make
> assertions here but don't document them. What I said about Netanyahu,
> for example, came directly from TV coverage which I witnessed myself.
> It's become part of the culture. Do you actually think you can pick
> nits on that?
> ***
>
> Source? (Let's see if you can prove what you say even once)
As I told you, my source is my own experience. You claimed it was a
baseless internet myth. Perhaps you should prove that with a cite.
***
No, you said the source was 'tv coverage', not your own experience. I asked
you to demonstrate it - surely such a statement from Netanyahu would be all
over google videos, or youtube. You are unable to provide any proof he said
it because you have none. You can't, as he didnt' say it.
> I like your use of "captured" for Shalit. You're no longer pretending
> he was kidnapped. That was really naive. See, you're educable and I'm
> your teacher..
> ***
>
> 'Captured' is irrelevant to the legality. He was captured in the process
> of
> being kidnapped.
Very funny. Of what "legality" do you speak?
***
The difference between 'kidnapped' and made a 'prisoner of war'.
The war against the
Palestinian People was begun in December of 1947 and has not yet
ended. The Resistance gets stronger. The parties are obviously at war.
You can not get away with pretending that the capture of Shalit was a
civilian crime as if in peacetime.
***
Since there was no 'war' at the time he was taken, he was kidnapped.
> And wasn't it a blunder for the Israelis to take Gaza and reacquire
> all those refugees they had so meticulously cleansed in 47-48! Aren't
> those brilliant Israelis something!
> ***
>
> Again, lying about 'cleansing'.
Am I to regurgitate for you the contents of volumes by professional
historians such as Avi Shlaim. Ilan Pappe, Ben-Ami and Benny Morris?
There is no confusion whatever among serious scholars that the Naqba,
the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, took place. You might try reading
on your own instead of parroting the false and discredited traditional
Israeli version. Tell us, whose work to you rely on?
***
You can regurgitate whatever you like, you will consistently fail to
convince because no 'ethnic cleansing' took place. The vast majority of
Palestinians left after being told to leave by Arab governments so they
could bomb Israel with impunity. There were isolated incidents of people
being told to leave, but nothing as organized as an 'ethnic cleansing'. The
large numbers of Arabs still in Israel speak to that fact.
> Oh, the guys dancing weren't Mossad? Is that what you're getting at?
> Didn't they identify themselves as such when interviewed after release
> on Israeli TV? And hadn't they admitted it to American interrogators
> during the two months or so before they were released? Where could I
> possibly have read that? Surely it's out there don't you think?
> ****
>
> If it is then I'm sure you'll be happy to provide a source. If not, then
> you're lying again.
So, you think I must "prove" everything I say or what I say is a lie?
***
Not exactly. You must prove what you say, but I'm open to the very strong
possibility that you are merely confused and not consciously saying
something you know isn't true.
Do you really think that's the way the Anglo Saxon world works? You
world, perhaps, but not ours.
***
??
>
> ***
> You've got to show a blunder before it becomes a blunder. You can't
> just assert it. You already screwed up on your "internet origin" for
> the dancing on the roof itself and for the Netanyahu quote. You know,
> lots of things embarrassing to Israel simply disappear from media
> archives. They even disappear from places like youtube. Maybe you are
> relying on something like that? But they still tend to be findable.
> People have written about them. Come on, one at a time. You post my
> blunder and criticize it and I'll respond.
> ***
>
> Start with those two.
No, no. You post what you say is my "blunder" and tell us what you
base it on..
***
Done.
Give me an url to my specific post and identify the
specific language in it that you rely upon. If you do that I'll
respond. If I've made a mistake I'll be happy to say so.
***
You just repeated it; "Oh, the guys dancing weren't Mossad? Is that what
you're getting at? Didn't they identify themselves as such when interviewed
after release on Israeli TV?"
You don't really need a URL for this post, do you? Let's see how happy you
are to admit your mistake.
But somehow I doubt your response will be useful.
> Probably just a repeat of your 'do your own research' pattern. That's your
> standard cop-out when you can't prove what you say.
You are not free to make defamatory allegations against me without
demonstrating them.
***
I don't. What makes you think you're free to make them against Israel?
You can't just vaguely suggest their existence
without specifics. To do it you must do your research. If you refuse,
I'll draw my conclusions....
***
Yes, and we'll draw ours....
Count 1
***
There isn't a thread that you haven't.
Count 1
***
Sorry, my first response was sent prematurely. I meant to write;
"All of them".
coaste...@yahoo.com
You're stumbling in an effort to tie the construction of the wall to a
single motive when that's obviously false.
>
> and time will tell if the
>
> > condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
>
> It's a lie. Whether it's a lie which benefits Israel expansionism will
> depend on the political courage of President Barak Obama. I'm betting
> on his courage.
> ***
>
> So far you're hitting two for two on the dishonesty scale. I sure hope this
> gets better.
Where's the lie. Explain it, argue it. Face me with it.
>
> Do you think the
>
> > security fence has curbed terrorism?
>
> It stopped suicide terrorism within Israel.
> ***
>
> Good for you. So you can see the virtue.
>
> Are you saddened that Islamic
>
> > terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel?
>
> Are you saddened by the Goldstone Report?
> ***
>
> Not saddened, disappointed. Largely because given the makeup of the
> contributors it was a foregone conclusion that Israel would be blamed, and
> disappointed that the media attention focused on Israel rather than the
> report's damnation of Hamas as well. Your turn.
You attack the contributors personally without any basis shown. You
attack them in the same style you attack me.
And your "focus" problem is without basis too. It's also very
improbable of the US mainstream Media as it has never been shown to
be unfair to Israel. It has for most part shielded her from
criticism. Israel is criticized in other sectors, primary on the net.
And besides, Goldstone has no responsibility for how the media treats
the report.
Your turn.
I don't believe it. Objectivity requires even-handedness. Name some of
them and give us a citation to the writings where this is displayed.
What you do here is describe an Israeli or Lobby position and call it
that of "objective observers".
Why do your American ideas always
> track perfectly the position of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, and
> Syria?
It's impossible. I know little of what their detailed positions are.
They won't be running the negotiations anyway. For a non-expert lay
observer it isn't necessary to go into their "positions" in detail
once one knows they are willing to commit to a peace negotiated by the
Palestinian Authority and approved by the Palestinian People. You are
terrified by the Resistance, especially Hezbollah. I think that's
because you know that the IDF has gone soft. It isn't what it was. The
kids today aren't fighting for their country's existence. They like
comfort and want to go out to the disco at night. That is NOT the
Hezbollah model. And you use the specter of Resistance zeal in you
effort to torpedo the talks. That's the Likud strategy. In fact the
Resistance's actual attitude toward peace can only be tested by their
actions regarding a peace treaty. The agreement will not be all put in
place on day one. If they resume warfare and don't follow the
agreement you simply will pull out. Your real problem is that you
don't want peace at all unless Israel's maximal goals are achieved.
Get over it, they can't be achieved.
>
> hardly to deny an independent state, but
>
> > rather to show the Palestinians what their anticipated border with Israel
> > will look like.
>
> Look at this Zionist arrogance from the faux "Anglo Saxon" in Alberta.
> It's for ISRAEL(!?) to unilaterally "show" the Palestinians their new
> border? Don't you even see how arrogant that is? And how ethnocentric
> and racist?
> ***
>
> Alberta? I see you're still having a hard time with NNTP's.
Ha, that eliminates Alberta. Manitoba?
It's not
> 'ethnocentric', 'racist', nor 'arrogant' to realize that Israel has to take
> unilateral steps towards a secure peace. Palestinians have rejected peace on
> so many occassions Israel naturally feels compelled to act.
The current right-wing regime in Israel, led by the Likud, has a
history of "acting" in the interest of continued occupation and
continued ethnic cleansing, albeit in creeping fashion.
> Did you know Qureia's family helped build it? They
>
> > supplied some of the concrete.
>
> "It's going to be built anyway, eh? Might as well make some money."
> Sure I can see the opportunistic impulse. But you don't want to touch
> that subject..
> ***
>
> You don't want to touch the subject that Palestinian's helped build it.
Say whatever you like. I'll touch it. But I'm a foreign policy
realist. Every country has potential war profiteers. That's true in
spades for Israel.
> > ***
> > Their "greivances" are not
> > political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
> > They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> > people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> > the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
> > ***
>
> > There was no ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That is a lie you must give up
> > if you want a serious discussion.
>
> Have you read the academic monograph focused in its entirety on that
> single series of events by the distinguished Israeli historian, Ilan
> Pappe?
> ***
>
> Ilan Pappe is a discredited fool fired from his University now relegated to
> a backwater school in England. For you to describe his as 'distinguished' is
> just another lie.
You know absolutely nothing about that except what you have received
from you Zionist colleagues, his enemies.
Do you deny the catastrophe, the 750,000 refugees, the demolition of
homes, the cleansing of Arab cities? Or do you just justify it by
alleging the rape victims brought it on themselves.
>
> When you read Professor Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of
> Palestine, you will discover that Palestine's Jewish leadership
> developed the plans for the expulsion of the Arabs from the country
> over a period of ten years. Though it wasn't talked about too much in
> public for obvious reasons; it had been a Zionist objective since the
> late 19th Century. The plan went through four versions, A, B, C, and
> D., the process having begun in the 1930s. The fourth version, Plan D
> or "Dalet," wasn't even quite finished when in December, 1947 the
> Yishuv military organizations began "practicing" driving people from
> their villages, dynamiting the homes and planting the ruins with land
> mines to prevent return.
> ****
>
> Have you ever asked yourself the question; "If there was a Plan to expel
> arabs from the country over a period of ten years, then why do so many Arabs
> remain in Israel?"
Because the outside world imposed an armistice before Israel's project
could be completed.
>
> Plan Dalet - which you can read at a website I've often sent you to - was a
> document outlining the strategy to be used in a time of war. It was
> absolutely not a plan for the expulsion of Arabs.
I've read the book. I've read the relevant portions of Plan Dalet.
I've read three historians on the subject and am convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt that you are wrong---and probably know so.
You can read the plan
> here...http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html
The Jewish Virual Library is a good source of Hasbara on Israeli
history. I prefer professional historians who have used the internal
Israeli primary sources.
I don't know what ISM is. I've read Morris, Pappe and Shlaim and many
lesser articles available on line.
but for those of us with a more discerning palate we can
> see it is bullshit from the start. Every time I see 'massacre' and 'Deir
> Yassin' in the same paragraph I know the writer hasn't done any research.
Vacuous. If you dared say why you would.
>
>
>
> > They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> > people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> > the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
>
> Israel has no hope of annexing an inch of the West Bank or East
> Jerusalem except through a peace treaty. Virtually the entire Western
> World is already agreed as to its terms. You know what they are. You
> know that the Wall is designed to prevent that from happening.
> Eventually Israel will have to cave. That will happen when it becomes
> clear to the Israeli people that the costs and existential dangers of
> continuing this ongoing Zionist criminal expansion exceeds the value
> of territorial benefit. It will also happen when the Jewish Community
> in America come to realize that the Nuclear Arms Race Israel started
> in the Middle East has the capacity to result in the incineration of New
> York,, Palm Beach, Los Angeles or San Francisco and there is virtually
> nothing we can do about it short of setting up a Soviet style
> autarchic state with no commercial contact with the outer world.
> ****
>
> Eventually the Palestinians are going to have to make peace with Israel,
> they've already lost every war they've started.
Gawdawful. The Palestinians have not started any wars. They have
RESISTED steadily in the one begun against them in 1947. Israel's wars
involved the surrounding Arab nation states. The Palestinians were not
belligerents in any of them I can recall. Set me straight here.
The introduction of
> terrorism into the region by Palestinians has only resulted in them losing
> more and more at the negotiating table. Eventually it will become clear to
> the Palestinians that their tactics have gotten them nowhere and they will
> have to become serious partners for peace. Not like Hamas, who is dedicated
> to the state's destruction and makes no mystery of that fact. Palestinians
> will have to accept the fact that since there was never any movement for a
> Palestinian capital in Jerusalem before Israel,
They were occupied by the British and had no autonomous government..
What do you expect?
there will never be one now.
> Palestinians will have to accept that their "refugees" are not returning to
> Israel,
Everyone knows that the refugee question will be resolved some other
way. This is a red herring.
and that Israel will be allowed to keep land captured in a defensive
> war.
The Palestinian people were not belligerents in 1967 There were
nothing but victims of Israeli occupation and and ethnic cleansing.
Eventually the Palestinians will start to cave, but not until their
> foriegn enablers like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt put pressure on them to
> do so.
There is no incentive for that. And don't forget Syria.
The very survival of Israel over the long haul is primarily dependent
on Barak Obama. With supporters like you Israel's future is dim: worst
case, nuclear extinction, then an apartheid state and then the end of
the Jewish State.
>
> > ***
> > And there is nothing
> > "islamic" about resisting the theft of your homeland. Its a defensive
> > war of national resistance. And finally, tell us just what is the
> > difference between bombing buses and bombing civilian neighborhoods?
> > Tell us, if the Palestinians are baboons for doing the former, what
> > are the Israelis for doing the latter to a defenseless, imprisoned
> > population? Snakes? Insects? Nazis?
> > ***
>
> > You can't equate terrorism with military interventions.
>
> I think you've been to college. Did you study engineering or geology
> for Chrissake. What happened to the "liberal" aspect of your
> education? Look up "state terrorism" and once you've done that don't
> come back here wanting to pick nits.
> ****
>
> You asked for the 'difference' between suicide terrorists on buses and
> military interventions by a democratically controlled real army. You figure
> it out.
So you will fail to provide argument and decline to admit to the
existence of state terrorism in this situation.
>
> <snip rant>
>
> When Hamas and the various other groups use civilians as
>
> > shields they change the nature of the target from 'civilian' to
> > 'military'.
> > And we know you can't deny Hamas and other groups use their own people as
> > shields, they are proud of the tactic.
>
> Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Read
> Goldstone and find out through him how the law actually reads. Maybe
> you studied marketing?
> ***
>
> What does Goldstone say about Hamas' use of human shields? What does
> Goldstone say about Hamas turning a hospital into a military command and
> control center? What does Goldstone say about Hamas storing weapons in
> homes, in 'densely populated areas'. What does Goldstone say about Fathi
> Hammad's admittance of Hamas using human shields?
When you're read it we'll talk about it.
>
> And if the report does recognize the reality and condemn it all - as it
> should - then why do you continue with this lie about 'targetting
> civilians'.
Because the Report deals with it. It doesn't lie.
I know you desperately want to portray the IDF as jack booted
> thugs marching through cities slaughtering old people and children, but the
> reality is quite different, the reality is Hamas creates civilian casualties
> from the tactics it employs.
>
The jack booted thugs are found in Israel's right wing governments.
The IDF is a bunch of kids just out of highschool with weapons turned
loose in the occupied territories.
It is, partially, but only where Israel chose not to take the land
opposite.
There are some deviations to recognize facts on the
> ground, but is largely on Israeli land. It's very characteristic of
> Palestinian propagandists to diminish the fact that it has served it's
> purpose, a purpose which wouldn't be necessary of Palestinians would finally
> get serious about peace and statehood.
The wall's going to come down. There will be no more land grabs or
apartheid in the West Bank.
drahcir
wrote:
Above statement makes no sense. If it's a lie, the wall is permanent.
If the wall if permanent, in your "mind" it benefits Israeli
"expansionism". So, why don't you explain to the group, when you say
"whether it's a lie which benefits...", PRECISELY how, if it's a lie,
it could NOT benefit Israeli "expansionism"?
>
> Do you think the
>
> > security fence has curbed terrorism?
>
> It stopped suicide terrorism within Israel.
>
> Are you saddened that Islamic
>
> > terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel?
>
> Are you saddened by the Goldstone Report?
When confronted with a simple, obvious truth, HIHW's alzheimic "brain"
can't cope, and changes the subject.
>
>
>
> > Clip gratuitous and false ad hominem.
>
> > > Did you think that the wall had only one purpose? No one
> > > else does.
> > > ***
>
> > > The security fence serves one primary purpose - to keep Israel safe from
> > > the
> > > Islamically motivated baboons who think blowing up buses is an appropriate
> > > response to political greivances
>
> > The primary purpose of the Apartheid Wall was and remains strategic,
> > to anticipate borders in a final settlement and to bantustanize the
> > Palestinian people so as to control them permanently, in other words
> > to deny them an independent state.
> > ***
>
> > Even for those opposed to the security fence they recognize it as the first
> > step towards permanent borders,
>
> There are simply no objective observers who believe that the first
> step toward negotiated borders is to build a concrete wall
> unilaterally on what the World Court determines to be Palestinian
> land, especially given the fact that the Israelis already have 78% of
> the country?
Question marks are called question marks because they generally are
placed after questions. Did you forget what you were writing during
the course of writing it?
HAVE YOU? And even if you have, who cares? It's a book panned by most
knowledgeable reviewers. There are plenty of accurate histories of
Israel you won't go near because they tell the truth.
He describes its origins and its planning over a period of ten
> years in great detail. He takes it city by city, village by village
> through its entire course. It is mostly based on Israeli government
> documents. How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
> Benny Morris?
LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?
Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
"Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.
He was the *first* to describe the ethnic cleansing of
> Palestine.
Yet more proof, as if any were needed, that you are either an
impossible ignoramus or a bald faced liar - no third option. We'll
leave it to readers to decide which. From the Wikipedia entry on Benny
Morris:
"Morris wrote in the Irish Times that "There was no Zionist 'plan' or
blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of 'ethnic
cleansing'" and that "the demonisation of Israel is largely based on
lies"
It's really not necessary to proceed further wasting my time with the
likes of you, you ridiculous fool.
> ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
keeping Israel's oil tanks "topped off", which I proved a lie, and
then, in order to try to escape, you made an idiot of yourself by
vainly trying to claim that "emergency" was "implicit" in the idea of
"topping off". You fled here as well:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.mideast/msg/7f29ed52b0cda944
The above link has been provided by me more than a few times. You have
never responded.
drahcir
> However, you NEVER will point out an alleged lie specifically.
Sorry, just one more thing. Anyone wishing proof that the above
statement is a bald-faced lie only needs to go to Google Groups
Advanced Search, and put "drahcir" for author, and "HHW" in the
subject line. Here's a link to that search:
In what is probably a majority of these posts, I link to specific
posts of HHW that I have proven lies or deliberate attempts to
deceive. The proof that he cannot refute these proofs is simply that
he refuses to reply - he flees. These posts of mine are in themselves
proof that when he repeatedly claims that I never cite his lies
specifically, as he did above, he is again lying.
Count 1
> > > The sharp decline in suicide bombings
>
> > > > since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at
> > > > least
> > > > right
> > > > about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a
> > > > kick
> > > > in
> > > > the (your) pants.
>
> > > Did YOU think that the wall would have no effect on suicide bombings?
> > > I
> > > didn't.
> > If Palestinian terrorists weren't in the picture, Israel never would
> > have
> > gone to the effort to build a security fence,
>
> Of course not. No Palestinians, no wall. Obviously. No Palestinians? A
> Greater Israel. Clear as crystal.
> ***
>
> ?? You're rambling incoherently again.
You're stumbling in an effort to tie the construction of the wall to a
single motive when that's obviously false.
***
Actually I explained to you how it is both to curb terrorism and show the
Palestinians their probable future border with Israel. That's not a single
motive. You've already called me arrogant for it, so why is it you forgot
that? (Hint, think "alzheimers")
>
> and time will tell if the
>
> > condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
>
> It's a lie. Whether it's a lie which benefits Israel expansionism will
> depend on the political courage of President Barak Obama. I'm betting
> on his courage.
> ***
>
> So far you're hitting two for two on the dishonesty scale. I sure hope
> this
> gets better.
Where's the lie. Explain it, argue it. Face me with it.
***
"It's a lie." That is a statement which you know isn't true.
> Do you think the
>
> > security fence has curbed terrorism?
>
> It stopped suicide terrorism within Israel.
> ***
>
> Good for you. So you can see the virtue.
>
> Are you saddened that Islamic
>
> > terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel?
>
> Are you saddened by the Goldstone Report?
> ***
>
> Not saddened, disappointed. Largely because given the makeup of the
> contributors it was a foregone conclusion that Israel would be blamed, and
> disappointed that the media attention focused on Israel rather than the
> report's damnation of Hamas as well. Your turn.
You attack the contributors personally without any basis shown. You
attack them in the same style you attack me.
And your "focus" problem is without basis too. It's also very
improbable of the US mainstream Media as it has never been shown to
be unfair to Israel. It has for most part shielded her from
criticism. Israel is criticized in other sectors, primary on the net.
And besides, Goldstone has no responsibility for how the media treats
the report.
Your turn.
***
OK - so you're not going to answer my question about being saddened that
Islamic terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel. I'm not surprised
since if you answered it honestly you'd be demonstrating - once again - that
you don't care that terrorism happens.
***
What you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.
Why do your American ideas always
> track perfectly the position of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, and
> Syria?
It's impossible. I know little of what their detailed positions are.
***
That's painfully obvious.
They won't be running the negotiations anyway. For a non-expert lay
observer it isn't necessary to go into their "positions" in detail
once one knows they are willing to commit to a peace negotiated by the
Palestinian Authority and approved by the Palestinian People.
***
Which none of them are willing to do.
In fact the
Resistance's actual attitude toward peace can only be tested by their
actions regarding a peace treaty.
***
Ok - let's start with that. Since all peace treaties have been scuttled by
Palestinians what does that tell you? What makes you think there is such a
thing as a 'resistance' anyway, when in fact there are several groups acting
against Israel who do not have shared goals or methods in mind?
>
> hardly to deny an independent state, but
>
> > rather to show the Palestinians what their anticipated border with
> > Israel
> > will look like.
>
> Look at this Zionist arrogance from the faux "Anglo Saxon" in Alberta.
> It's for ISRAEL(!?) to unilaterally "show" the Palestinians their new
> border? Don't you even see how arrogant that is? And how ethnocentric
> and racist?
> ***
>
> Alberta? I see you're still having a hard time with NNTP's.
Ha, that eliminates Alberta. Manitoba?
***
Don't sweat it - although I'm glad to see you finally realized I'm not
drahcir. You can apologize for all the times you claimed otherwise now.
It's not
> 'ethnocentric', 'racist', nor 'arrogant' to realize that Israel has to
> take
> unilateral steps towards a secure peace. Palestinians have rejected peace
> on
> so many occassions Israel naturally feels compelled to act.
The current right-wing regime in Israel, led by the Likud, has a
history of "acting" in the interest of continued occupation and
continued ethnic cleansing, albeit in creeping fashion.
***
Non-sequitur - and erroneous even if it wasn't.
> Did you know Qureia's family helped build it? They
>
> > supplied some of the concrete.
>
> "It's going to be built anyway, eh? Might as well make some money."
> Sure I can see the opportunistic impulse. But you don't want to touch
> that subject..
> ***
>
> You don't want to touch the subject that Palestinian's helped build it.
Say whatever you like. I'll touch it. But I'm a foreign policy
realist. Every country has potential war profiteers. That's true in
spades for Israel.
****
She's certainly been forced into the position enough times by her enemies.
> > ***
> > Their "greivances" are not
> > political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
> > They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> > people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> > the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
> > ***
>
> > There was no ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That is a lie you must give
> > up
> > if you want a serious discussion.
>
> Have you read the academic monograph focused in its entirety on that
> single series of events by the distinguished Israeli historian, Ilan
> Pappe?
> ***
>
> Ilan Pappe is a discredited fool fired from his University now relegated
> to
> a backwater school in England. For you to describe his as 'distinguished'
> is
> just another lie.
You know absolutely nothing about that except what you have received
from you Zionist colleagues, his enemies.
***
Another lie.
> Naqba, by the way is simply the Arabic word for CATASTROPHE. That's
> their description of what happened to them at the hands of the Jews in
> 1948. It's up to them to describe it, not you. You have a conflict of
> interest.
> ****
>
> It's up to you to discern if their description is apt. If there was a
> catastrophe, they brought in on themselves.
Do you deny the catastrophe, the 750,000 refugees, the demolition of
homes, the cleansing of Arab cities? Or do you just justify it by
alleging the rape victims brought it on themselves.
****
Are you open to the possibility that the history you've been spoon fed is
biased, inaccurate, and designed to demonize one side only?
>
> When you read Professor Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of
> Palestine, you will discover that Palestine's Jewish leadership
> developed the plans for the expulsion of the Arabs from the country
> over a period of ten years. Though it wasn't talked about too much in
> public for obvious reasons; it had been a Zionist objective since the
> late 19th Century. The plan went through four versions, A, B, C, and
> D., the process having begun in the 1930s. The fourth version, Plan D
> or "Dalet," wasn't even quite finished when in December, 1947 the
> Yishuv military organizations began "practicing" driving people from
> their villages, dynamiting the homes and planting the ruins with land
> mines to prevent return.
> ****
>
> Have you ever asked yourself the question; "If there was a Plan to expel
> arabs from the country over a period of ten years, then why do so many
> Arabs
> remain in Israel?"
Because the outside world imposed an armistice before Israel's project
could be completed.
****
Right, there's always some excuse. The reality is the "Plan Dalet" that you
drool over was never even considered a plan for ethnic cleansing.
>
> Plan Dalet - which you can read at a website I've often sent you to - was
> a
> document outlining the strategy to be used in a time of war. It was
> absolutely not a plan for the expulsion of Arabs.
I've read the book. I've read the relevant portions of Plan Dalet.
I've read three historians on the subject and am convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt that you are wrong---and probably know so.
****
No you're not. That's why you're so agitated right now.
You can read the plan
> here...http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html
The Jewish Virual Library is a good source of Hasbara on Israeli
history. I prefer professional historians who have used the internal
Israeli primary sources.
***
That is the internal Israeli primary sources, and if you had clicked the
link and actually read the document you'd have seen they even note Khalidi
in their notes.
> .. and you will learn there are different conditions to be used against
> Arab
> population centers who show resistance (fight against Jews) and those who
> do
> not. Plan Dalet was part of the process that moved the various Israeli
> fighting forces into a regular army. This document has been used by
> propagandists who demonize Israel to make money, but there is no consensus
> that it was even widely adopted.
****
No response to this I see. I'm shocked.
but for those of us with a more discerning palate we can
> see it is bullshit from the start. Every time I see 'massacre' and 'Deir
> Yassin' in the same paragraph I know the writer hasn't done any research.
Vacuous. If you dared say why you would.
***
What's truly vacuous is the claim there was a massacre at Deir Yassin. It's
a lie only really found on the internet.
> Israel has no hope of annexing an inch of the West Bank or East
> Jerusalem except through a peace treaty. Virtually the entire Western
> World is already agreed as to its terms. You know what they are. You
> know that the Wall is designed to prevent that from happening.
> Eventually Israel will have to cave. That will happen when it becomes
> clear to the Israeli people that the costs and existential dangers of
> continuing this ongoing Zionist criminal expansion exceeds the value
> of territorial benefit. It will also happen when the Jewish Community
> in America come to realize that the Nuclear Arms Race Israel started
> in the Middle East has the capacity to result in the incineration of New
> York,, Palm Beach, Los Angeles or San Francisco and there is virtually
> nothing we can do about it short of setting up a Soviet style
> autarchic state with no commercial contact with the outer world.
> ****
>
> Eventually the Palestinians are going to have to make peace with Israel,
> they've already lost every war they've started.
Gawdawful. The Palestinians have not started any wars. They have
RESISTED steadily in the one begun against them in 1947. Israel's wars
involved the surrounding Arab nation states. The Palestinians were not
belligerents in any of them I can recall. Set me straight here.
****
You're so crooked that's a task for someone else. I have a life. Besides,
I've been trying to set you straight for a long time and you resist every
opportunity - you cling to ignorance. To even suggest the Palestinians were
not belligerent in any of Israel's defensive wars is to ludicrous to even
bother with.
The introduction of
> terrorism into the region by Palestinians has only resulted in them losing
> more and more at the negotiating table. Eventually it will become clear to
> the Palestinians that their tactics have gotten them nowhere and they will
> have to become serious partners for peace. Not like Hamas, who is
> dedicated
> to the state's destruction and makes no mystery of that fact. Palestinians
> will have to accept the fact that since there was never any movement for a
> Palestinian capital in Jerusalem before Israel,
They were occupied by the British and had no autonomous government..
What do you expect?
***
Some evidence that before Israel's formation the 'Palestinians' - the term
didn't really exist then - had some kind of movement to create a nation
state with Jerusalem as its capital. Such evidence doesnt' exist because
there never was such a movement. Face it, the whole 'East Jerusalem' as it's
capital nonsense is designed to provide the Palestinians with a reason not
to negotiate with Israel, a condition they know Israel won't accept.
there will never be one now.
> Palestinians will have to accept that their "refugees" are not returning
> to
> Israel,
Everyone knows that the refugee question will be resolved some other
way. This is a red herring.
***
You must not be reading what Hamas is saying. Odd, since I'm posting it
regularly.
and that Israel will be allowed to keep land captured in a defensive
> war.
The Palestinian people were not belligerents in 1967 There were
nothing but victims of Israeli occupation and and ethnic cleansing.
****
You're going to have to give up these lies about 'ethnic cleansing'. You -
and the 'professional historians' you rely on - have never produced one
shred of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.
Eventually the Palestinians will start to cave, but not until their
> foriegn enablers like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt put pressure on them
> to
> do so.
There is no incentive for that. And don't forget Syria.
The very survival of Israel over the long haul is primarily dependent
on Barak Obama. With supporters like you Israel's future is dim: worst
case, nuclear extinction, then an apartheid state and then the end of
the Jewish State.
****
What the Palestinians are banking on is time, eventually Israel will lose
strength through demographics. Beinart's article articulated the situation
well. This is why Palestinians aren't really motivated to find peace with
Israel. Give it another generation or two and they won't have to. Whatever
takes Israel's place may be the first nation to have formed from terrorism,
and a shining light of hope for the Middle East will have been snuffed out
forever.
This is why you are so totally wrong about Palestinian yearning for peace.
It doesnt' exist because it's not part of their long term strategy.
>
> > ***
> > And there is nothing
> > "islamic" about resisting the theft of your homeland. Its a defensive
> > war of national resistance. And finally, tell us just what is the
> > difference between bombing buses and bombing civilian neighborhoods?
> > Tell us, if the Palestinians are baboons for doing the former, what
> > are the Israelis for doing the latter to a defenseless, imprisoned
> > population? Snakes? Insects? Nazis?
> > ***
>
> > You can't equate terrorism with military interventions.
>
> I think you've been to college. Did you study engineering or geology
> for Chrissake. What happened to the "liberal" aspect of your
> education? Look up "state terrorism" and once you've done that don't
> come back here wanting to pick nits.
> ****
>
> You asked for the 'difference' between suicide terrorists on buses and
> military interventions by a democratically controlled real army. You
> figure
> it out.
So you will fail to provide argument and decline to admit to the
existence of state terrorism in this situation.
***
I am of the opinion there is no such thing as 'state terrorism'. State's
doing terrible things - like your country's actions in Nicaragua in the
80's - is one thing, sugggesting states conduct 'terrorism' is another. One
of the great misconceptions in America these days is that doing something
'terrible' means 'terrorism' has been done.
>
> <snip rant>
>
> When Hamas and the various other groups use civilians as
>
> > shields they change the nature of the target from 'civilian' to
> > 'military'.
> > And we know you can't deny Hamas and other groups use their own people
> > as
> > shields, they are proud of the tactic.
>
> Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Read
> Goldstone and find out through him how the law actually reads. Maybe
> you studied marketing?
> ***
>
> What does Goldstone say about Hamas' use of human shields? What does
> Goldstone say about Hamas turning a hospital into a military command and
> control center? What does Goldstone say about Hamas storing weapons in
> homes, in 'densely populated areas'. What does Goldstone say about Fathi
> Hammad's admittance of Hamas using human shields?
When you're read it we'll talk about it.
***
I'm sure if you had you'd be able to provide answers. Obviously.....
>
> And if the report does recognize the reality and condemn it all - as it
> should - then why do you continue with this lie about 'targetting
> civilians'.
Because the Report deals with it. It doesn't lie.
***
Why do you lie?
I know you desperately want to portray the IDF as jack booted
> thugs marching through cities slaughtering old people and children, but
> the
> reality is quite different, the reality is Hamas creates civilian
> casualties
> from the tactics it employs.
>
The jack booted thugs are found in Israel's right wing governments.
The IDF is a bunch of kids just out of highschool with weapons turned
loose in the occupied territories.
***
If there are 'civilian victims' they are victims of Hamas and made victims
by Hamas by the tactics Hamas admits to using. Simple fact.
****
'Partially' is another lie. The majority of the fence runs along the green
line with a few deviations. Construction was even held up pending an Israeli
supreme court decision that went against the Israeli government. In any
event, the border you think it could have been built 'perfectly
legitimately' on has never been recognized by the Palestinians, and the fact
that it could have been 'perfectly legitimate' is a recognition that a
Security fence was necessary to stop Islamic terrorists.
There are some deviations to recognize facts on the
> ground, but is largely on Israeli land. It's very characteristic of
> Palestinian propagandists to diminish the fact that it has served it's
> purpose, a purpose which wouldn't be necessary of Palestinians would
> finally
> get serious about peace and statehood.
The wall's going to come down. There will be no more land grabs or
apartheid in the West Bank.
****
There is no apartheid now, and I sincerely hope the Palestinians create the
scenario necessary for the wall to come down. But as I said before, it's not
really part of their long term strategy.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 20, 10:37 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 3:22 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 19, 11:20 am, Bolt Upright <Nob...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 18/05/2010 8:30 PM, dsharavi wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 18, 3:30 pm, "Count 1"<omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Excellent response, Count. You've said most of what needed to be
> > > > >> said.
>
> > > > >> Deborah
> > > > >> ***
>
> > > > >> Careful... he'll accuse you of being me, then Mirelle will pipe in and say
> > > > >> she's been aware of this fact for quite some time.
> > > > >> Thanks Deb.
>
> > > > > Very welcome. But what if he accuses you of being a Mirelle forgery?
>
> > > > > Deborah
>
> > > > Unlikely. Mirelle had more class than C(o)unt1 could ever hope for.
>
> > > can't even see how silly he makes himself look.
>
> > Mirelle drove you people crazy for several years.
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>
> > in the movement, fighting the good fight.
Yes, she is. She's one of tens of thousands, she and her supportive
Jewish husband. The campuses are now teeming with them and they tend
to be organized. It's the Sixties again. You've created us, Ratner. It
didn't have to go down this way. Israel didn't have to be put on the
defensive, backed up against her own Apartheid Wall, looking into a
strangely unanticipated future studded with suddenly adverse facts on
the ground of her own making such as the settlement project. "Damn we
want that West Bank so badly, but what do we do with those millions of
Palestinians WE put there? 1948 and 1967 don't work any more. We can't
expel them from their homes AGAIN, some of them for the third time. We
can't permit a defeat of our ideology which would make the last forty
years a history of vile and useless struggle for us. So what's left?
A one state egalitarian democracy in which we must rub elbows and make
nice with this scum we ourselves have radicalized? The end of the
Jewish State. Or do we save it by giving the West Bank back to the
Palestinians contrary to all the struggles of our great men, our "ends
justify the means" guys, our Sharons and our Begins and our Ben-
Gurions. What to do?"
These are Israel's problems, self-created yet unanticipated as if in a
Greek tragedy. They are living in a weird world where they constantly
stumble over the effects of their own hubristic blunders. They follow
their Virgil along that ever narrowing downward spiral filled with
revelations about themselves.
Barak Obama is not Israel's enemy. He is going to do for you what you
haven't the wit and wisdom to do for yourselves. At the same time he's
going to save us from you. You, the Lobby and the Israelis should be
embracing him. He's your Gorbachev, come to lead you from the Promised
Land.
drahcir
wrote:
<snip>
>
> Barak Obama is not Israel's enemy. He is going to do for you what you
> haven't the wit and wisdom to do for yourselves. At the same time he's
> going to save us from you. You, the Lobby and the Israelis should be
> embracing him.
Yet more evidence that HHW is OUT OF HIS MIND. The VAST majority of
American Jews voted for and support Obama. I am one of them. I have
pointed this out to you before, but because you are so completely
fried, you can't process the information - it makes your tidy little
imaginary world fall apart.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 23, 3:45 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
Replacing Ratner's snip wherein I speak of Mirelle and what she
represents nation-wide:
Yes, she is. She's one of tens of thousands, she and her supportive
Jewish husband. The campuses are now teeming with them and they tend
to be organized. It's the Sixties again. You've created us, Ratner.
It
didn't have to go down this way. Israel didn't have to be put on the
defensive, backed up against her own Apartheid Wall, looking into a
strangely unanticipated future studded with suddenly adverse facts on
the ground of her own making such as the settlement project. "Damn we
want that West Bank so badly, but what do we do with those millions
of
Palestinians WE put there? 1948 and 1967 don't work any more. We
can't
expel them from their homes AGAIN, some of them for the third time.
We
can't permit a defeat of our ideology which would make the last forty
years a history of vile and useless struggle for us. So what's left?
A one state egalitarian democracy in which we must rub elbows and
make
nice with this scum we ourselves have radicalized? The end of the
Jewish State? Or do we save it by giving the West Bank back to the
Palestinians contrary to all the struggles of our great men, our
"ends
justify the means" guys, our Sharons and our Begins and our Ben-
Gurions. What to do?"
These are Israel's problems, self-created yet unanticipated as if in
a
Greek tragedy. They are living in a weird world where they constantly
stumble over the effects of their own hubristic blunders. They follow
their Virgil along that ever narrowing downward spiral filled with
revelations about themselves.
Barak Obama is not Israel's enemy. He is going to do for you what you
haven't the wit and wisdom to do for yourselves. At the same time
he's
going to save us from you. You, the Lobby and the Israelis should be
embracing him. He's your Gorbachev, come to lead you from the
Promised
Land.
>
>
>
> > Barak Obama is not Israel's enemy. He is going to do for you what you
> > haven't the wit and wisdom to do for yourselves. At the same time he's
> > going to save us from you. You, the Lobby and the Israelis should be
> > embracing him.
>
> Yet more evidence that HHW is OUT OF HIS MIND. The VAST majority of
> American Jews voted for and support Obama. I am one of them.
Another deflection. You know I talk past you to the readers. That was
a corporate "you." Your personal presence HERE doesn't represent the
liberal Jewish mainstream. You're not a part of it. You're a pathetic,
closeted, dependent. You do not support Obama's Israel policy which
was signaled clearly in the run up to the election. The Lobby hates
him and can not constrain its hostility. You're with the Lobby so far
as can be seen here. If I'm wrong and you do support Obama on Israel,
just say so here and now. We'll be able to plug that in in useful
fashion. I'll look forward to the additional support.
As it stands, however, you attack anyone who criticizes Israeli policy
or breaks the taboos the lobby imposes upon us. You sell Islamophobia
and accordingly must think it is just fine as public policy. The
Israel Lobby, like the neo-conservatives, is very right-wing. It's a
small minority of a tiny national minority. It's power comes not from
numbers or consensus among Jews, but from extreme wealth, control or
intimidation of the mainstream media, excellent organization and the
abusive, probably illegal, corruption of our Congress. It's a single
issue lobby which displays no liberal values whatever except that it
doesn't discriminate between liberals and conservatives when
intimidating politicians. Its closest Israeli ties are with the
Likud, an ultra-Zionist party in Israel. For example, both Feith and
Wolfowitz maintained extremely intimate ties with the Likud for
decades and it can certainly be said that they represented its
interests in the American government. Nothing you have done here
separates you from the Lobby and its arch conservative connections.
I have
> pointed this out to you before, but because you are so completely
> fried, you can't process the information - it makes your tidy little
> imaginary world fall apart.
Who cares who you voted for or whether given your Zionist Islamophobia
it made any sense? But your behavior here is of legitimate interest.
De facto you a radical Zionist, a colleague of sharavi. The only
difference is that you are secular and she is bewigged.
> Obama is your Gorbachev, come to lead you from the Promised Land.
Yes, that's from, Ratner.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 22, 7:22 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > However, you NEVER will point out an alleged lie specifically.
>
> Sorry, just one more thing. Anyone wishing proof that the above
> statement is a bald-faced lie only needs to go to Google Groups
> Advanced Search, and put "drahcir" for author, and "HHW" in the
> subject line. Here's a link to that search:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/25lbed6
All it shows is that you have systematically introduced falsehoods
about me into the titles of Posts. There is nothing I can do about
that. You're a recidivist on that score and would love to keep me tied
up arguing about myself. That's the basis of your strategy, that and
defamation. No Mensch you, not in any sense of the word.
What you haven't done is point out passages from my work which contain
lies, much less prove it. You point to threads or rambling posts but
never to specific language. You want to label me without paying the
price. You know what the price will be and your're cowardly. And I
have made far fewer of the inevitable mistakes of fact than you have.
A lie, Ratner, is a knowing falsehood. It has two elements, an evil
state of mind, i.e., the intent to deceive and promulgation of a
falsehood. I make mistakes occasionally, but they aren't lies. There
isn't even anything to be gained by doing it. You occupy the Zionist
no-win position and I'm on the side of truth, beauty, justice and the
American Way. You are perpetually swimming upstream in an attempt to
deny or justify the acts of a manifestly criminal regime.
>
> In what is probably a majority of these posts, I link to specific
> posts of HHW that I have proven lies or deliberate attempts to
> deceive.
You've clipped my demand that you provide specific urls to specific
posts and that you identify the particular language in each which
contains a lie. Why did you do that? Surely you don't expect me to
search a 5 or 10 page post or an entire thread guessing what you may
be talking about? This is simply defamatory bullshit. You began it
very early when you had discovered that you couldn't handle me
straight up in debate. Come on, if what you say about me were true you
could fulfill this demand of mine fifty times over in a couple of
hours. You'd have me at your mercy. But it isn't true and you know it.
You're not about to face the music.
The proof that he cannot refute these proofs is simply that
> he refuses to reply - he flees. These posts of mine are in themselves
> proof that when he repeatedly claims that I never cite his lies
> specifically, as he did above, he is again lying.
You don't identify these "lies" specifically. You provide an
undifferentiated list of posts which you have labeled in stupid and
inflamatory fashion. You pretend that I should study them and guess
which of my own passages you claim are lies. And you clip my offer.
What you're doing is transparent, the behavior of an amoral but
cunning gutter snipe.
drahcir
wrote:
> On May 23, 8:09 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 7:22 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > However, you NEVER will point out an alleged lie specifically.
>
> > Sorry, just one more thing. Anyone wishing proof that the above
> > statement is a bald-faced lie only needs to go to Google Groups
> > Advanced Search, and put "drahcir" for author, and "HHW" in the
> > subject line. Here's a link to that search:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/25lbed6
>
> All it shows is that you have systematically introduced falsehoods
> about me into the titles of Posts.
Um, no, many of the links are to threads in which I prove you a liar.
You can often tell because in addition to "HHW" in the subject, there
might be reference to your lying. By the way, not all of the links to
your lies are included in this search - very often, I have proven you
a liar, but have not bothered to change the subject.
Let's examine a few, shall we?
Here's the very first thread from the search:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/70e59d04b030ede3
It is titled "Anyone want proof what a despicable and infantile liar
HHW, aka iconoclast, aka Cazador is? Read here." In the above-cited
post, I demonstrate your bald-faced attempt to deceive.
Let's look further down the search. Oh, look. Here's another one where
you attempted to deceive, and I caught you:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.canada/msg/94869c8bbc80312c
Moving on, this one's fun, titled "incontrovertible proof that HHW is
a dishonest person"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/45f91f6e47cc51fb
Ah, the memories. Here's a link to the final post in a thread in which
you refused to link to your "proof" of my plagiarism. Of course, that
was because there was no such proof - there couldn't have been, since
the alleged plagiarism was simply you getting confused. THis was the
final post in the thread - you fled.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/f242b82ed364dacc
Moving down the list, here's the famous one where you lied about US
commitment to keep Israeli oil tanks topped off (it would have been so
easy for you to avoid this one)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.mideast/msg/7f29ed52b0cda944
Another catch of you lying:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/9b501c1d49a6a6e5
Here's one of the more despicable ones, where you lied in reply to
another poster about what I had said. You didn't even have the courage
to say it to my face:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/c10cee18c6ee1f05
Here's that one where you quoted out of context with the crystal clear
intent to deceive:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7603588266296075
I'd say the first factor that motivates your lying is your hatred of
jews. But certainly the second is in the course of attempting to
extricate yourself from something stupid you said or did. Here's an
example:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/d02a4625c6a253e1
This is getting boring. The group if free to see the myriad other
posts from the list in which you are proven by me to have lied. Of
course, your latest lie is here, from yesterday:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/3f10933c01c2b20b
In this link, I prove beyond any doubt you lied about Benny Morris.
I think basically you're a pathological liar, meaning you don't
realize how constantly mendacious you are.
Let me know whether the above will suffice. If not, there are PLENTY
more where they came from.
There is nothing I can do about
> that. You're a recidivist on that score and would love to keep me tied
> up arguing about myself. That's the basis of your strategy, that and
> defamation. No Mensch you, not in any sense of the word.
>
> What you haven't done is point out passages from my work which contain
> lies, much less prove it.
H, when you get alzheimic like this, one doesn't know whether to laugh
or cry. The links are there, the proofs are there. You saying the
proofs aren't there serves no purpose. As I scan below, I see that
there is nothing of substance - just more attempts to convince that
what happened didn't happen, that there is no specific reference to
your myriad lies, when of course there is. Buenos noches, senor el
cazado....
coaste...@yahoo.com
On May 23, 10:52 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The sharp decline in suicide bombings
>
> > > > > since the construction of the fence indicates the author was at
> > > > > least
> > > > > right
> > > > > about that point. In a sense, Israel proved Pape right. Ain't that a
> > > > > kick
> > > > > in
> > > > > the (your) pants.
>
> > > > Did YOU think that the wall would have no effect on suicide bombings?
> > > > I
> > > > didn't.
> > > If Palestinian terrorists weren't in the picture, Israel never would
> > > have
> > > gone to the effort to build a security fence,
> > Of course not. No Palestinians, no wall. Obviously. No Palestinians? A
> > Greater Israel. Clear as crystal.
> > ***
> > ?? You're rambling incoherently again.
> You're stumbling in an effort to tie the construction of the wall to a
> single motive when that's obviously false.
> ***
> Actually I explained to you how it is both to curb terrorism and show the
> Palestinians their probable future border with Israel.
But only after I called you on it. And as you know you are unable to
defend that position credibly in public. You can only do it around the
racist dinner table.
That's not a single
> motive.
Where you were outed was on the existence of an additional motive, one
beyond security against suicide bombers. You groped around and came up
with the arrogant and racist presumption that it was a lesson for the
Palestinians. Were you Netanyahu I'd be organizing a campaign in
Congress to end the dole immediately. That's what your arrogance stems
from, the dole from America.
You've already called me arrogant for it, so why is it you forgot
> that? (Hint, think "alzheimers")
You're worse than arrogant. You display not the least rationale for
it.
> > and time will tell if the
>
> > > condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
A lie is a lie immediately when uttered. This "turns out to be"
business relates simply to its success or failure in deception. That
such nuance escapes you, is irrelevant to you is not a good sign.
> > It's a lie as to Israeli goals and intent. It's a lie in that Wall was designed to buy time in the construction of what they actually expect to be their new border. It's a lie of the manipulative type, one designed to deflect attention from the ultimate impact of a half finished illegal project. Whether it's a lie which benefits Israel expansionism will
> > depend on the political courage of President Barak Obama. I'm betting
> > on his courage.
> > ***
>
> > So far you're hitting two for two on the dishonesty scale. I sure hope
> > this
> > gets better.
>
> Where's the lie. Explain it, argue it. Face me with it.
> ***
>
> "It's a lie." That is a statement which you know isn't true.
Bullshit, I'll tell you exactly what I know:
When it was uttered, the Israelis had no intention of tearing it down
and had every reason to believe that no U.S. President would have the
courage to make them do it, especially after it was already a fact on
the ground. For them to say that they are perfectly willing to tear it
down subject to negotiations was misleading. It was intended to
mislead. It gives the false impression that it really had only one
purpose, security. It is actions like this which require Israel to
have a nanny, or several of them. It is this kind of offensive
bullshit which has lost us three trillion dollars since 1948. We had
no moral or legal obligation to support Israel to this extent or even
at all. It's this capacity for endless manipulation combined with the
same thing in the domestic lobby which has done it. Yes, that
"assurance" was meant to deceive. It presumed that America would never
make them tear it down. It bought them time to *impose* their border
on the Palestinians by fiat. Times have changed. They're not strong
enough to do it any more.
Have you read the ICJ's Wall decision? If not your innocence is
colossal. If you have your readiness to manipulate dishonestly is
equally so.
> > Do you think the
>
> > > security fence has curbed terrorism?
>
> > It stopped suicide terrorism within Israel.
> > ***
>
> > Good for you. So you can see the virtue.
>
> > Are you saddened that Islamic
>
> > > terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel?
>
> > Are you saddened by the Goldstone Report?
> > ***
>
> > Not saddened, disappointed. Largely because given the makeup of the
> > contributors it was a foregone conclusion that Israel would be blamed, and
> > disappointed that the media attention focused on Israel rather than the
> > report's damnation of Hamas as well. Your turn.
>
> You immediately attack the contributors personally without any basis shown. You
> attack them in the same style you attack me.
>
> And your "focus" problem is without basis too. It's also very
> improbable of the US mainstream Media as it has never been shown to
> be unfair to Israel. It has for most part shielded her from
> criticism. Israel is criticized in other sectors, primary on the net.
> And besides, Goldstone has no responsibility for how the media treats
> the report.
>
> Your turn.
> ***
>
> OK - so you're not going to answer my question about being saddened that
> Islamic terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel.
Look, son of a bitch, you question is an insult. Don't pretend it
deserves an answer.
I'm not surprised
> since if you answered it honestly you'd be demonstrating - once again - that
> you don't care that terrorism happens.
I'm a humanist. I want to see all terrorism end, but unlike you I'm
reflective about it. I know from 20th Century history that the
greatest terrorist danger is the nation state. It''s capable of lethal
politics on a mass scale. It's capable of committing industrialized
democide. State terrorism is the type Israel represents. She has all
the characteristics of a state which could become very dangerous:
nuclear weapons and other WMDs, militant racism, a history productive
of paranoia, and an aggressive "true believer" ideology which is
designed to displace moral systems so as to justify crimes against
humanity.
I want to see a nuclear free Middle East, one in which state terrorism
and state supported terrorism are gone along with the rest of it in
the lower ranges. But I'm not going to let you get away with the
demonisation of an already oppressed people because some of them have
become suicide terrorists after fifty years of brutal oppression and
captivity. I won't help you oppress them further by playing your
games. I won't let you derail the peace process by the use of racist
stereotyping.
> > > Clip gratuitous and false ad hominem.
>
> > > > Did you think that the wall had only one purpose? No one
> > > > else does.
> > > > ***
>
> > > > The security fence serves one primary purpose - to keep Israel safe
> > > > from
> > > > the
> > > > Islamically motivated baboons who think blowing up buses is an
> > > > appropriate
> > > > response to political greivances
>
> > > The primary purpose of the Apartheid Wall was and remains strategic,
> > > to anticipate borders in a final settlement and to bantustanize the
> > > Palestinian people so as to control them permanently, in other words
> > > to deny them an independent state.
> > > ***
>
> > > Even for those opposed to the security fence they recognize it as the
> > > first
> > > step towards permanent borders,
>
> > There are simply no objective observers who believe that the first
> > step toward negotiated borders is to build a concrete wall
> > unilaterally on what the World Court determines to be Palestinian
> > land, especially given the fact that the Israelis already have 78% of
> > the country. Where do you get these weird ideas? And why do your Anglo
> > Saxon ideas always track the Israeli and American Zionist position
> > perfectly?
> > ****
>
> > Actually there are many objective observers who feel the security fence is
> > a
> > way of delineating a permanent border.
>
> I don't believe it.
> ***
>
> What you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.
Perhaps but you made the assertion a couple of times and now refuse to
back it up.
>
> Why do your American ideas always
>
> > track perfectly the position of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, and
> > Syria?
>
> It's impossible. I know little of what their detailed positions are.
> ***
>
> That's painfully obvious.
No, it's practical from my point of view. Given limited time other
information is more valuable to me.
>
> They won't be running the negotiations anyway. For a non-expert lay
> observer it isn't necessary to go into their "positions" in detail
> once one knows they are willing to commit to a peace negotiated by the
> Palestinian Authority and approved by the Palestinian People.
> ***
>
> Which none of them are willing to do.
We disagree. I'm convinced I'm correct and you're not.
> In fact the
> Resistance's actual attitude toward peace can only be tested by their
> actions regarding a peace treaty.
> ***
>
> Ok - let's start with that. Since all peace treaties have been scuttled by
> Palestinians what does that tell you?
What peace treaties? The problem is that there have been none. What do
you think the present negotiations are about?
What makes you think there is such a
> thing as a 'resistance' anyway, when in fact there are several groups acting
> against Israel who do not have shared goals or methods in mind?
These arguments are designed to deflect from serious negotiation. They
raise issues which are conceivably plausible but not likely after all
these years of misery. The history is pretty well known. They are
essentially racist predictions of the future which can not be proved.
Like the President of the United States I'm convinced that its in the
best interests of Israel, much less the rest of the parties, to
negotiate a two state solution being aware that there are unknowns
involved and that everyone will be walking on eggs while the process
moves forward. Ethnic cleansing is out of the question. Bantustans are
out of the question. Giving up the Jewish State and living in a true
democracy with the Palestinians seems out of the question on the
Israeli side. What other alternatives are there? Let us know what you
think on this ultimate issue. One thing that seems suspect to me in
this venue is that not one of you commits yourself to an open
discussion of what you see as the future for Israel and the
Palestinians. You're not here to do that, just to make life difficult
for Israel's critics. The patterns become clear after a while. Of
course it leaves us suspecting that you know that there will be no
serious negotiations short of some sort of surrender by the
Palestinians.
My prediction is that our President is not going down in flames on
this issue. He's not going to permit his Administration to fail
because of Israeli intransigence and Lobby perfidy. If our Jewish
Community insists on a fight to the finish against this fine young man
they will have it. If he has to go directly to the American people and
explain to them in broad historical terms why it is that this dispute
is so intractable, and how unjust it is, he will do it.
>
>
>
> > hardly to deny an independent state, but
>
> > > rather to show the Palestinians what their anticipated border with
> > > Israel
> > > will look like.
>
> > Look at this Zionist arrogance from the faux "Anglo Saxon" in Alberta.
> > It's for ISRAEL(!?) to unilaterally "show" the Palestinians their new
> > border? Don't you even see how arrogant that is? And how ethnocentric
> > and racist?
> > ***
>
> > Alberta? I see you're still having a hard time with NNTP's.
>
> Ha, that eliminates Alberta. Manitoba?
> ***
>
> Don't sweat it - although I'm glad to see you finally realized I'm not
> drahcir. You can apologize for all the times you claimed otherwise now.
You deserve no apologies on anything, especially so long as you
continue the Anglo Saxon crap.
> It's not
>
> > 'ethnocentric', 'racist', nor 'arrogant' to realize that Israel has to
> > take
> > unilateral steps towards a secure peace.
Sure, one might be, "Let's convene in Cannes." That wouldn't be
objectionable. But unilateral power plays designed to dictate outcomes
are unsuited to negotiations. They're not meeting in a train car in
Versailles. The Palestinians are not defeated. In fact the Israelis
have lost ground in the balance. Her former military options are not
so freely available. She is, you know, a full-fledged pariah state now
days.
Palestinians have rejected peace
> > on
> > so many occassions Israel naturally feels compelled to act.
> The current right-wing regime in Israel, led by the Likud, has a
> history of "acting" in the interest of continued occupation and
> continued ethnic cleansing, albeit in creeping fashion.
> ***
>
> Non-sequitur - and erroneous even if it wasn't.
Perfectly relevant. Her conduct with the occupied Palestinians has
since a month after the 1967 War been consistent with not wanting
peace absent full consolidation of maximal goals. That is powerful
circumstantial evidence which is definitely sequitur. In addition, the
Palestinians have had a great deal of difficulty in getting fair
coverage in the Western Press. Israel has been in control of the spin
until recently. She still is with our major media. "The Palestinians
have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" is typical.
Their history as written by Dennis Ross won't be persuasive in the
future.
> > Did you know Qureia's family helped build it? They
>
> > > supplied some of the concrete.
>
> > "It's going to be built anyway, eh? Might as well make some money."
> > Sure I can see the opportunistic impulse. But you don't want to touch
> > that subject..
> > ***
>
> > You don't want to touch the subject that Palestinian's helped build it.
>
> Say whatever you like. I'll touch it. But I'm a foreign policy
> realist. Every country has potential war profiteers. That's true in
> spades for Israel.
> ****
>
> She's certainly been forced into the position enough times by her enemies.
No one is forced into war profiteering. It's a slimy personal choice.
> > > ***
> > > Their "greivances" are not
> > > political in the civilian sense. That's a lie. They are war aims.
> > > They have been at war with the Jews since they were attacked *as a
> > > people* at the beginning of the Naqba in December, 1947, i.e., since
> > > the Jews began the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
> > > ***
>
> > > There was no ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That is a lie you must give
> > > up
> > > if you want a serious discussion.
>
> > Have you read the academic monograph focused in its entirety on that
> > single series of events by the distinguished Israeli historian, Ilan
> > Pappe?
> > ***
>
> > Ilan Pappe is a discredited fool fired from his University now relegated
> > to
> > a backwater school in England. For you to describe his as 'distinguished'
> > is
> > just another lie.
>
> You know absolutely nothing about that except what you have received
> from you Zionist colleagues, his enemies.
> ***
>
> Another lie.
Have you read the Pappe book?
>
> > Naqba, by the way is simply the Arabic word for CATASTROPHE. That's
> > their description of what happened to them at the hands of the Jews in
> > 1948. It's up to them to describe it, not you. You have a conflict of
> > interest.
> > ****
>
> > It's up to you to discern if their description is apt. If there was a
> > catastrophe, they brought in on themselves.
>
> Do you deny the catastrophe, the 750,000 refugees, the demolition of
> homes, the cleansing of Arab cities? Or do you just justify it by
> alleging the rape victims brought it on themselves.
> ****
>
> Are you open to the possibility that the history you've been spoon fed is
> biased, inaccurate, and designed to demonize one side only?
No one spoon feeds books to a man who values intellectual freedom. You
can't resist the ad hominem impulse. All my life I've been a
voracious reader. Of course I've made my own choices. The vast bulk
of it has been academic work product. I read that stuff for pleasure.
What do you read?
> > When you read Professor Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of
> > Palestine, you will discover that Palestine's Jewish leadership
> > developed the plans for the expulsion of the Arabs from the country
> > over a period of ten years. Though it wasn't talked about too much in
> > public for obvious reasons; it had been a Zionist objective since the
> > late 19th Century. The plan went through four versions, A, B, C, and
> > D., the process having begun in the 1930s. The fourth version, Plan D
> > or "Dalet," wasn't even quite finished when in December, 1947 the
> > Yishuv military organizations began "practicing" driving people from
> > their villages, dynamiting the homes and planting the ruins with land
> > mines to prevent return.
> > ****
>
> > Have you ever asked yourself the question; "If there was a Plan to expel
> > arabs from the country over a period of ten years, then why do so many
> > Arabs
> > remain in Israel?"
>
> Because the outside world imposed an armistice before Israel's project
> could be completed.
> ****
>
> Right, there's always some excuse. The reality is the "Plan Dalet" that you
> drool over was never even considered a plan for ethnic cleansing.
Have you read Plan C?
> > Plan Dalet - which you can read at a website I've often sent you to - was
> > a
> > document outlining the strategy to be used in a time of war. It was
> > absolutely not a plan for the expulsion of Arabs.
Why do you hesitate to read Ilan Pappe? Why do you let a few hostile
Zionist reviewers determine that for you? Here's a snippet from his
book:
"Like Plans A and B, Plan C aimed to prepare the military forces of
the Jewish community in Palestine for the offensive campaigns they
would be engaged in against rural and urban Palestine the moment the
British were gone. The purpose of such actions would be to "deter" the
Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements, and to
retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads and traffic. Plan C
spelled out clearly what punitive actions of this kind would entail:
"Killing the Palestinian political leadership.
"Killing the Palestinian inciters and their financial supporters.
"Killing Palestinians who acted against Jews.
"Killing Senior Palestinian officers and officials (in the Mandatory
System).
"Damaging Palestinian Transportation.
"Damaging the sources of Palestinian livelihoods: water wells, coffee
houses, meeting places, etc.
"Plan C added that all data required for the performance of these
actions could be found in the village files: lists of leaders,
activists, 'potential human targets', the precise lay out of villages
and so on. (48)
"However, within a few months, yet another plan was drawn up: Plan D
(Dalet). (49) It was this plan that sealed the fate of the
Palestinians within the territory the Zionist leaders had set their
eyes on for their future Jewish State. Indifferent to whether these
Palestinians might decide to collaborate with or oppose their Jewish
State, Plan Dalet called for their systematic and total expulsion from
their homeland."
> I've read the book. I've read the relevant portions of Plan Dalet.
> I've read three historians on the subject and am convinced beyond a
> reasonable doubt that you are wrong---and probably know so.
> ****
>
> No you're not. That's why you're so agitated right now.
>
> You can read the plan
>
> > here...http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html
>
> The Jewish Virual Library is a good source of Hasbara on Israeli
> history. I prefer professional historians who have used the internal
> Israeli primary sources.
> ***
> That is the internal Israeli primary sources, and if you had clicked the
> link and actually read the document you'd have seen they even note Khalidi
> in their notes.
>
> > .. and you will learn there are different conditions to be used against
> > Arab
> > population centers who show resistance (fight against Jews) and those who
> > do
> > not. Plan Dalet was part of the process that moved the various Israeli
> > fighting forces into a regular army. This document has been used by
> > propagandists who demonize Israel to make money, but there is no consensus
> > that it was even widely adopted.
>
> ****
>
> No response to this I see. I'm shocked.
I'll get back to you.
>
> but for those of us with a more discerning palate we can
>
> > see it is bullshit from the start. Every time I see 'massacre' and 'Deir
> > Yassin' in the same paragraph I know the writer hasn't done any research.
>
> Vacuous. If you dared say why you would.
> ***
>
> What's truly vacuous is the claim there was a massacre at Deir Yassin. It's
> a lie only really found on the internet.
"Deir Yassin
"The systematic nature of Plan Dalet is manifested in Deir Yassin, a
pastoral and cordial village that had reached a non-aggression pact
with the Hagana in Jerusalem, but was doomed to be wiped out because
it was within the areas designated in Plan Dalet to be cleansed.
Because of the prior agreement they had signed with the village, the
Hagana decided to send the Irgun and Stern Gang troops, so as to
absolve themselves from any official accountability. In the subsequent
cleansings of 'friendly' villages even this ploy would no longer be
deemed necessary.
"On 9 April 1948, Jewish forces occupied the village of Deir Yassin.
It lay on a hill west of Jerusalem, eight hundred metres above sea
level and close to the Jewish neighbourhood of Givat Shaul. The old
village school serves today as a mental hospital for the western
Jewish neighbourhood that expanded over the destroyed village.
"As they burst into the village, the Jewish soldiers sprayed the
houses with machine-gun fire, killingmany of the inhabitants. The
remaining villagers were then gathered in one place and murdered in
cold blood, their bodies abused while a number of the women were raped
and then killed.(6)
"Fahim Zaydan, who was twelve years old at the time recalled how he
saw his family murdered in front of his eyes:
"They took us out one after the other; shot an old man and when one of
his daughters cried, she was shot too. Then they called my brother
Muhammad, and shot him in front of us, and when my mother yelled,
bending over him - carrying my little sister Hudra in her hands,
still breastfeeding her - they shot her too.(7)
Saydan himself was shot too, while standing in a row of children the
Jewish soldiers had lined up against a wall, which they had then
sprayed with bullets, 'just for the fun of it', before they left. He
was lucky to survive his wounds.
"Recent research has brought down the accepted number of people
massacred at Deir Yassin from 170 to ninety-three. Of course, apart
from the victims of the massaacre itself, dozens of others were killed
in the fighting and hence were not calculated in the official list of
victims. However, as the Jewish forces regarded any Palestinian
village as an enemy military base, the distinction between massacring
people and killing them 'in battle' was slight. One only has to be
told that thirty babies were among the slaughtered in Deir Yassin to
understand why the whole 'quantitative' exercise - which the Israelis
repeated as recently as April 2002 in the massacre in Jenin - is
insignificant. At the time, the Jewish leadership proudly announced a
high number of victims so as to make Deir Yassin the epicentre of the
catastrophe - a warning to all Palestinians that a similar fate
awaited them if they refused to abandon their homes and take flight.
(8)
"Four nearby villages were next....." (Pappe, Ilam, "The Ethnic
Cleansing of Palestine", pp. 90-91)
"
>
> > Israel has no hope of annexing an inch of the West Bank or East
> > Jerusalem except through a peace treaty. Virtually the entire Western
> > World is already agreed as to its terms. You know what they are. You
> > know that the Wall is designed to prevent that from happening.
> > Eventually Israel will have to cave. That will happen when it becomes
> > clear to the Israeli people that the costs and existential dangers of
> > continuing this ongoing Zionist criminal expansion exceeds the value
> > of territorial benefit. It will also happen when the Jewish Community
> > in America come to realize that the Nuclear Arms Race Israel started
> > in the Middle East has the capacity to result in the incineration of New
> > York,, Palm Beach, Los Angeles or San Francisco and there is virtually
> > nothing we can do about it short of setting up a Soviet style
> > autarchic state with no commercial contact with the outer world.
> > ****
>
> > Eventually the Palestinians are going to have to make peace with Israel,
> > they've already lost every war they've started.
>
> Gawdawful. The Palestinians have not started any wars. They have
> RESISTED steadily in the one begun against them in 1947. Israel's wars
> involved the surrounding Arab nation states. The Palestinians were not
> belligerents in any of them I can recall. Set me straight here.
> ****
>
> You're so crooked that's a task for someone else. I have a life.
Haha. Shall I call it a lie? That's what you would do. The
Palestinians are refugees, not a nation state.
Besides,
> I've been trying to set you straight for a long time and you resist every
> opportunity - you cling to ignorance. To even suggest the Palestinians were
> not belligerent in any of Israel's defensive wars is to ludicrous to even
> bother with.
I acknowledge that it's my idea, but think about it. Try the first
Arab Israeli War which started in mid-May, 1948. At the time the
Palestinians were in flight from their villages at gun point all over
Israel. They had no government, no army. They were refugees in motion.
There were two big events, a vast ethnic cleansing which began before
the real war and remained for the most part tactically unrelated to
the real war begun by the Arab States when they invaded
Palestine....In fact that's what Pappe calls them, a real war and a
phony war. The phony war was simply a crime against defenseless
civilians who had lost the protection of the British Mandate. The
Palestinians still don't have a government, only an "Authority". The
belligerent states were IIRC Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. They were
fighting within Palestine, but Palestine was not a state and Israel
has seen to it that it still is not.
> The introduction of
>
> > terrorism into the region by Palestinians has only resulted in them losing
> > more and more at the negotiating table. Eventually it will become clear to
> > the Palestinians that their tactics have gotten them nowhere and they will
> > have to become serious partners for peace. Not like Hamas, who is
> > dedicated
> > to the state's destruction and makes no mystery of that fact. Palestinians
> > will have to accept the fact that since there was never any movement for a
> > Palestinian capital in Jerusalem before Israel,
>
> They were occupied by the British and had no autonomous government..
> What do you expect?
> ***
>
> Some evidence that before Israel's formation the 'Palestinians' - the term
> didn't really exist then - had some kind of movement to create a nation
> state with Jerusalem as its capital. Such evidence doesnt' exist because
> there never was such a movement. Face it, the whole 'East Jerusalem' as it's
> capital nonsense is designed to provide the Palestinians with a reason not
> to negotiate with Israel, a condition they know Israel won't accept.
They lived there for thousands of years. They are the descendants of
the Jews of the time of Christ, "original Semites" in the words of
Osama bin Laden. Read Shlomo Sand.
They converted from Judaism to Islam when the Arabs stormed in during
their expansionist period.
Palestine was was the name for the country provided by the Romans when
it was part of their empire.
Why did they need a movement? They were citizens of the Ottoman Empire
until it collapsed at the end of WWI. Independence from whom? The
Brits took over to manage a transition. Then the Jews took over and
drove the Palestinian majority out of the country.
Do you actually draw something negative about the fact that they
didn't have a government? When did they have a chance to develop one?
You struggle not to be fair to the Palestinians.
>
> there will never be one now.
>
> > Palestinians will have to accept that their "refugees" are not returning
> > to
> > Israel,
>
> Everyone knows that the refugee question will be resolved some other
> way. This is a red herring.
> ***
>
> You must not be reading what Hamas is saying. Odd, since I'm posting it
> regularly.
The Palestinian refugees will be compensated but will not physically
return to what is now Israel. Look, we're trying to save you "Jewish
State".
> and that Israel will be allowed to keep land captured in a defensive
>
> > war.
>
> The Palestinian people were not belligerents in 1967 There were
> nothing but victims of Israeli occupation and and ethnic cleansing.
> ****
>
> You're going to have to give up these lies about 'ethnic cleansing'. You -
> and the 'professional historians' you rely on - have never produced one
> shred of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.
You haven't read them. This is sheer chutzpah on your part. I'm
surprised no one else is speaking up to counter you.
> Eventually the Palestinians will start to cave, but not until their
>
> > foriegn enablers like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt put pressure on them
> > to
> > do so.
>
> There is no incentive for that. And don't forget Syria.
>
> The very survival of Israel over the long haul is primarily dependent
> on Barak Obama. With supporters like you Israel's future is dim: worst
> case, nuclear extinction, then an apartheid state and then the end of
> the Jewish State.
> ****
>
> What the Palestinians are banking on is time, eventually Israel will lose
> strength through demographics. Beinart's article articulated the situation
> well. This is why Palestinians aren't really motivated to find peace with
> Israel. Give it another generation or two and they won't have to. Whatever
> takes Israel's place may be the first nation to have formed from terrorism,
> and a shining light of hope for the Middle East will have been snuffed out
> forever.
You're snuffing yourself out. Settle for Chrissake! With two states
you can keep a Jewish majority and 78% of Palestine. If you learn how
to adhere to civilized moral and political standards you can even
become a constructive and respected modern power, a bridge to Europe.
>
> This is why you are so totally wrong about Palestinian yearning for peace.
> It doesnt' exist because it's not part of their long term strategy.
Fear. Why not try it? You now what the alternative path is. Apartheid,
which won't be tolerated and can not be sustained and then a democracy
of all of Palestine's residents, i.e., the end of the Jewish State.
You read the Mearsheimer transcript. What do you see as an alternative
to what he predicts for the future? You might argue that an Apartheid
State could be maintained forever. You might point out that Israel may
be planning a final ethnic cleansing solution and the democratic state
won't eventuate. But think about the dangers that poses for Israel.
State terrorism killed one hundred million defenseless people in
Marxist-Leninist countries in the 20th Century alone. That's excluding
war dead. That toll was of their own defenseless people, their own
citizens. That doesn't include the fascist and Japanese Imperialist
toll, just what Communists did to their own people trying to drive
round pegs into square holes at gunpoint. Do you want Israel to keep
going down that path? Look at the quandry she faces. The only real
answer for her unless she settles for the two state solution asap is
the perpetration of another giant crime against humanity. You know
she is not going to give up the Jewish State concept. Israel can not
survive going down that criminal path again.
>
>
>
> > <snip rant>
>
> > When Hamas and the various other groups use civilians as
>
> > > shields they change the nature of the target from 'civilian' to
> > > 'military'.
> > > And we know you can't deny Hamas and other groups use their own people
> > > as
> > > shields, they are proud of the tactic.
>
> > Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Read
> > Goldstone and find out through him how the law actually reads. Maybe
> > you studied marketing?
> > ***
>
> > What does Goldstone say about Hamas' use of human shields? What does
> > Goldstone say about Hamas turning a hospital into a military command and
> > control center? What does Goldstone say about Hamas storing weapons in
> > homes, in 'densely populated areas'. What does Goldstone say about Fathi
> > Hammad's admittance of Hamas using human shields?
>
> When you're read it we'll talk about it.
> ***
>
> I'm sure if you had you'd be able to provide answers. Obviously.....
I read it the first week it appeared on the web. I'm willing to read
it again.
>
>
>
> > And if the report does recognize the reality and condemn it all - as it
> > should - then why do you continue with this lie about 'targetting
> > civilians'.
>
> Because the Report deals with it. It doesn't lie.
> ***
>
> Why do you lie?
Why do you beat your Shicksa?
> I know you desperately want to portray the IDF as jack booted> thugs marching through cities slaughtering old people and children, but
> > the
> > reality is quite different, the reality is Hamas creates civilian
> > casualties
> > from the tactics it employs.
>
> The jack booted thugs are found in Israel's right wing governments.
> The IDF is a bunch of kids just out of highschool with weapons turned
> loose in the occupied territories.
> ***
>
> If there are 'civilian victims' they are victims of Hamas and made victims
> by Hamas by the tactics Hamas admits to using. Simple fact.
So Hamas fired those beautiful 155 mm white phosphorus bursts, the
ones with the football field sized footprint?
You can't escape the apartheid analogy. It's much too close. In fact
many think that what Israel has done to the Palestinians is much worse
and that she should be happy to have the more soft and gentle
designation.
>
> > The evil in the wall is where it is
> > located, on Palestinian territory. It could have been built perfectly
> > legitimately on the border. You've already admitted in mealy mouth
> > fashion that it did have a non-security purpose. You just don't wan't
> > to focus on it. Yes, very characteristic of you Anglo Saxons to parrot
> > all the details of Israeli Hasbara.
> > ***
>
> > What border? The one Palestinians have continuously failed to recognize?
> > However you are quite wrong, the security fence is largely construced
> > along
> > the 'green line'.
>
> It is, partially, but only where Israel chose not to take the land
> opposite.
> ****
>
> 'Partially' is another lie. The majority of the fence runs along the green
> line with a few deviations. Construction was even held up pending an Israeli
> supreme court decision that went against the Israeli government. In any
> event, the border you think it could have been built 'perfectly
> legitimately' on has never been recognized by the Palestinians, and the fact
> that it could have been 'perfectly legitimate' is a recognition that a
> Security fence was necessary to stop Islamic terrorists.
You want Israel to be at war forever.
>
> There are some deviations to recognize facts on the
>
> > ground, but is largely on Israeli land. It's very characteristic of
> > Palestinian propagandists to diminish the fact that it has served it's
> > purpose, a purpose which wouldn't be necessary of Palestinians would
> > finally
> > get serious about peace and statehood.
>
> The wall's going to come down. There will be no more land grabs or
> apartheid in the West Bank.
> ****
>
> There is no apartheid now, and I sincerely hope the Palestinians create the
> scenario necessary for the wall to come down. But as I said before, it's not
> really part of their long term strategy.
They accept the Saudi Plan. What's wrong with that? You see, it really
boils down to Israel's greed for more land. 78% is not enough. My
problem with that is that it is causing the United States immense
problems. We don't owe Israel an obligation to shoulder her problems
when she refuses to recognize our national interests and expects our
support at the same time.
drahcir
wrote:
Pardon me, but precisely WHAT do you imagine you "called him" on?
There is ONE SIMPLE FACT here, whatever you want to imagine as the
ultimate purposes of the wall. That fact? NO TERRORISM = NO WALL.
PERIOD.
> moves forward. Ethnic cleansing is out of the question. ...
>
> read more »
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 22, 1:10 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
doesn't merit a response.
drahcir
wrote:
Translation: you lied AGAIN when you said:
"He was the *first* to describe the ethnic cleansing of Palestine."
I proved it a lie:
"Morris wrote in the Irish Times that "There was no Zionist 'plan' or
blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of 'ethnic
cleansing'" and that "the demonisation of Israel is largely based on
lies"
The Wikipedia entry on Morris gives an excellent summary of each of
his books. IN NONE OF THEM IS THE IDEA OF ETHNIC CLEANSING PROPOSED.
HHW IS A LIAR. HE HAS NEVER READ A BOOK OF MORRIS.
Of course, snipping has other advantages for HHW. Here's won't have to
answer this, for example:
> > and time will tell if the
> > condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
> It's a lie. Whether it's a lie which benefits Israel expansionism will
> depend on the political courage of President Barak Obama. I'm betting
> on his courage.
Above statement makes no sense. If it's a lie, the wall is permanent.
If the wall if permanent, in your "mind" it benefits Israeli
"expansionism". So, why don't you explain to the group, when you say
"whether it's a lie which benefits...", PRECISELY how, if it's a lie,
it could NOT benefit Israeli "expansionism"?
***********
OF course, H said something stupid AGAIN, and snipping it away is his
only escape. Lying, deceiving, snipping, fleeing - H, you're a
dishonest coward - not particularly admirable, I'd say.
Count 1
> You're stumbling in an effort to tie the construction of the wall to a
> single motive when that's obviously false.
> ***
> Actually I explained to you how it is both to curb terrorism and show the
> Palestinians their probable future border with Israel.
But only after I called you on it.
****
You don't "call" me on anything, you asked a question and I gave you my
answer. I'm not surprised someone who loves terrorism as much as you do
feels the need to see a fight when there isn't one around.
> > and time will tell if the
>
> > > condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
A lie is a lie immediately when uttered. This "turns out to be"
business relates simply to its success or failure in deception. That
such nuance escapes you, is irrelevant to you is not a good sign.
***
You can't provide 'nuance'. You struggle enough with the basics. I remain
accurate, 'the security fence is designed to be temporary' statement may
turn out to be a lie in the due course of time, until then neither you nor I
are able to conclude a lie has or has not been told.
> Where's the lie. Explain it, argue it. Face me with it.
> ***
>
> "It's a lie." That is a statement which you know isn't true.
Bullshit, I'll tell you exactly what I know:
When it was uttered, the Israelis had no intention of tearing it down
and had every reason to believe that no U.S. President would have the
courage to make them do it,
****
Prove it.
> Your turn.
> ***
>
> OK - so you're not going to answer my question about being saddened that
> Islamic terrorists can't blow up teenagers in Israel.
Look, son of a bitch, you question is an insult. Don't pretend it
deserves an answer.
****
Dodge, duck and cover, and all that after I magnaminously answered your
question. It's OK, I'm used to watching you avoid questions you find
uncomfortable. It's further proof of what a terrible debater you are.
I'm not surprised
> since if you answered it honestly you'd be demonstrating - once again -
> that
> you don't care that terrorism happens.
I'm a humanist. I want to see all terrorism end,
****
No you don't. You even go to the extreme and call terrorism 'resistance'.
Resistance to what? Peace? To a negotiated settlement? You're about to say
'to occupation and ethnic cleansing', but there is no ethnic cleansing and
the occupation is sustained by an unwillingness on the part of the
Palestinians to make peace and end terrorism.
> > Actually there are many objective observers who feel the security fence
> > is
> > a
> > way of delineating a permanent border.
>
> I don't believe it.
> ***
>
> What you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.
Perhaps but you made the assertion a couple of times and now refuse to
back it up.
***
To take a page from your book, "Do your own research". Are you actually
trying to suggest the line of the security fence along the 1967 green line
isn't meant to delineate a probable border? Then you have to admit it's
only intention is to end terrorism. *think* carefully now....
> Why do your American ideas always
>
> > track perfectly the position of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran,
> > and
> > Syria?
>
> It's impossible. I know little of what their detailed positions are.
> ***
>
> That's painfully obvious.
No, it's practical from my point of view. Given limited time other
information is more valuable to me.
****
ROFLMAO - You're actually trying to say being ignorant is 'practical'.
Well, all I can say is I'm truly not surprised you feel that way.
> They won't be running the negotiations anyway. For a non-expert lay
> observer it isn't necessary to go into their "positions" in detail
> once one knows they are willing to commit to a peace negotiated by the
> Palestinian Authority and approved by the Palestinian People.
> ***
>
> Which none of them are willing to do.
We disagree. I'm convinced I'm correct and you're not.
***
Again, what you believe is irrelevant. You've already admitted being
ignorant of the Palestinians positions, so we know you can base your
feelings of being correct on nothing.
> In fact the
> Resistance's actual attitude toward peace can only be tested by their
> actions regarding a peace treaty.
> ***
>
> Ok - let's start with that. Since all peace treaties have been scuttled by
> Palestinians what does that tell you?
What peace treaties?
***
The several that have been offered to the Palestinians. Don't pretend you're
not aware of them now.
What makes you think there is such a
> thing as a 'resistance' anyway, when in fact there are several groups
> acting
> against Israel who do not have shared goals or methods in mind?
These arguments are designed to deflect from serious negotiation.
***
These are not 'arguments', they are a reflection of facts.
> > Alberta? I see you're still having a hard time with NNTP's.
>
> Ha, that eliminates Alberta. Manitoba?
> ***
>
> Don't sweat it - although I'm glad to see you finally realized I'm not
> drahcir. You can apologize for all the times you claimed otherwise now.
You deserve no apologies on anything, especially so long as you
continue the Anglo Saxon crap.
***
My heritage is irrelevant here. What is relevant is your refusal to do the
honourable thing and apologize for calling me a 'sock puppet', especially
since you are now admitting you were wrong.
> It's not
>
> > 'ethnocentric', 'racist', nor 'arrogant' to realize that Israel has to
> > take
> > unilateral steps towards a secure peace.
Sure, one might be, "Let's convene in Cannes." That wouldn't be
objectionable. But unilateral power plays designed to dictate outcomes
are unsuited to negotiations.
***
So you understand why Hamas must be ignored. If peace is the goal and Israel
finds no suitable partner in the process from the Palestinian side what
option does she have that you wouldn't find objectionable?
Palestinians have rejected peace
> > on
> > so many occassions Israel naturally feels compelled to act.
> The current right-wing regime in Israel, led by the Likud, has a
> history of "acting" in the interest of continued occupation and
> continued ethnic cleansing, albeit in creeping fashion.
> ***
>
> Non-sequitur - and erroneous even if it wasn't.
Perfectly relevant. Her conduct with the occupied Palestinians has
since a month after the 1967 War been consistent with not wanting
peace absent full consolidation of maximal goals.
***
Nonsense. Israel has worked tirelessly for peace. The vast majority of all
captured lands have been returned since 1967, based on her long principle of
'land for peace'.
> Say whatever you like. I'll touch it. But I'm a foreign policy
> realist. Every country has potential war profiteers. That's true in
> spades for Israel.
> ****
>
> She's certainly been forced into the position enough times by her enemies.
No one is forced into war profiteering. It's a slimy personal choice.
***
By 'forced' I meant 'attacked'. But your statement is fair enough - I look
forward to your condemnation of the Palestinians who made those slimy
decisions and profitted from the security fence's construction.
> > Ilan Pappe is a discredited fool fired from his University now relegated
> > to
> > a backwater school in England. For you to describe his as
> > 'distinguished'
> > is
> > just another lie.
>
> You know absolutely nothing about that except what you have received
> from you Zionist colleagues, his enemies.
> ***
>
> Another lie.
Have you read the Pappe book?
***
Have you read Dershowitz's 'The Case for Israel'? Have you read Ross' 'The
Missing Peace'?
Of course you haven't.
> Do you deny the catastrophe, the 750,000 refugees, the demolition of
> homes, the cleansing of Arab cities? Or do you just justify it by
> alleging the rape victims brought it on themselves.
> ****
>
> Are you open to the possibility that the history you've been spoon fed is
> biased, inaccurate, and designed to demonize one side only?
No one spoon feeds books to a man who values intellectual freedom.
****
Then I reiterate the question....
> Right, there's always some excuse. The reality is the "Plan Dalet" that
> you
> drool over was never even considered a plan for ethnic cleansing.
> > Plan Dalet - which you can read at a website I've often sent you to -
> > was
> > a
> > document outlining the strategy to be used in a time of war. It was
> > absolutely not a plan for the expulsion of Arabs.
Why do you hesitate to read Ilan Pappe? Why do you let a few hostile
Zionist reviewers determine that for you? Here's a snippet from his
book:
****
I don't bother reading Pappe because his central thesis has been trounced by
so many people I see no value in the process. Just as I'm not about to read
books on how Elvis was abducted by aliens.
> > .. and you will learn there are different conditions to be used against
> > Arab
> > population centers who show resistance (fight against Jews) and those
> > who
> > do
> > not. Plan Dalet was part of the process that moved the various Israeli
> > fighting forces into a regular army. This document has been used by
> > propagandists who demonize Israel to make money, but there is no
> > consensus
> > that it was even widely adopted.
>
> ****
>
> No response to this I see. I'm shocked.
I'll get back to you.
***
Still no response.
> What's truly vacuous is the claim there was a massacre at Deir Yassin.
> It's
> a lie only really found on the internet.
"Deir Yassin
"Four nearby villages were next....." (Pappe, Ilam, "The Ethnic
Cleansing of Palestine", pp. 90-91)
***
As I've asked you before, have you considered the history you've been spoon
fed to be unreliable given it's biases? Pappe's discrediting has been
thorough, and I know you've seen the material. So why continue quoting him
when you know he's wrong?
Haha. Shall I call it a lie? That's what you would do. The
Palestinians are refugees, not a nation state.
***
And they've never been a nation state, which makes their demands for part of
Jerusalem as their capital very suspect... don't you think?
Besides,
> I've been trying to set you straight for a long time and you resist every
> opportunity - you cling to ignorance. To even suggest the Palestinians
> were
> not belligerent in any of Israel's defensive wars is to ludicrous to even
> bother with.
I acknowledge that it's my idea, but think about it.
***
Given your history I have no interest in discussing your 'ideas'. You're
someone who actually admits to being ignorant and then argues such ignorance
is 'practical'.
> They were occupied by the British and had no autonomous government..
> What do you expect?
> ***
>
> Some evidence that before Israel's formation the 'Palestinians' - the term
> didn't really exist then - had some kind of movement to create a nation
> state with Jerusalem as its capital. Such evidence doesnt' exist because
> there never was such a movement. Face it, the whole 'East Jerusalem' as
> it's
> capital nonsense is designed to provide the Palestinians with a reason not
> to negotiate with Israel, a condition they know Israel won't accept.
They lived there for thousands of years. (...)
Do you actually draw something negative about the fact that they
didn't have a government? When did they have a chance to develop one?
You struggle not to be fair to the Palestinians.
***
They've always had a chance to develop a government. The most glaring
example of their missed opportunity to create a government was in 1947.
> Everyone knows that the refugee question will be resolved some other
> way. This is a red herring.
> ***
>
> You must not be reading what Hamas is saying. Odd, since I'm posting it
> regularly.
The Palestinian refugees will be compensated but will not physically
return to what is now Israel. Look, we're trying to save you "Jewish
State".
****
If that's your position then peace is not possible as long as Hamas exists.
Get it yet?
> You're going to have to give up these lies about 'ethnic cleansing'. You -
> and the 'professional historians' you rely on - have never produced one
> shred of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.
You haven't read them. This is sheer chutzpah on your part. I'm
surprised no one else is speaking up to counter you.
****
They know better.
> What the Palestinians are banking on is time, eventually Israel will lose
> strength through demographics. Beinart's article articulated the situation
> well. This is why Palestinians aren't really motivated to find peace with
> Israel. Give it another generation or two and they won't have to. Whatever
> takes Israel's place may be the first nation to have formed from
> terrorism,
> and a shining light of hope for the Middle East will have been snuffed out
> forever.
You're snuffing yourself out. Settle for Chrissake!
****
First of all - there is no 'myself' here. Second of all - if you ever
decided not to be ignorant - you'd know that finding a settlement is not
something Israel is holding up.
> This is why you are so totally wrong about Palestinian yearning for peace.
> It doesnt' exist because it's not part of their long term strategy.
Fear. Why not try it?
***
Why not learn why all their previous attempts at trying it have been met
with failure? Why not try not being ignorant?
> > And if the report does recognize the reality and condemn it all - as it
> > should - then why do you continue with this lie about 'targetting
> > civilians'.
>
> Because the Report deals with it. It doesn't lie.
> ***
>
> Why do you lie?
Why do you beat your Shicksa?
****
Another dodge.
> The jack booted thugs are found in Israel's right wing governments.
> The IDF is a bunch of kids just out of highschool with weapons turned
> loose in the occupied territories.
> ***
>
> If there are 'civilian victims' they are victims of Hamas and made victims
> by Hamas by the tactics Hamas admits to using. Simple fact.
So Hamas fired those beautiful 155 mm white phosphorus bursts, the
ones with the football field sized footprint?
****
They wish. Israel however wishes they didn't have to, but once they did have
to they wished Hamas wouldn't have used civilians areas to fight from. But
Hamas just couldn't resist the publicity they'd get by forcing Israel to
fire into neighborhoods, publicity that's parroted by ignoramuses such as
yourself.
BTW - at this point 'ignoramus' to describe you isn't an insult, you've
admitted to the condition.
> > Are you winning this one? You're doing no better than you ever do.
> > ***
>
> > I suspect you're about to run from another thread.
>
> > And you are quite wrong
There's a first time for everything. But given your pattern I suspect I will
eventually be proven right.
> > Since there is no such thing as an 'apartheid wall' you're right, his
> > essay
> > doesn't have anything to do with flying pink unicorns either.
You can't escape the apartheid analogy.
***
I can't escape what doesn't trap me. If you let the lie go then there would
be no reason for me to respond to nonsense from an ignoramus.
> 'Partially' is another lie. The majority of the fence runs along the green
> line with a few deviations. Construction was even held up pending an
> Israeli
> supreme court decision that went against the Israeli government. In any
> event, the border you think it could have been built 'perfectly
> legitimately' on has never been recognized by the Palestinians, and the
> fact
> that it could have been 'perfectly legitimate' is a recognition that a
> Security fence was necessary to stop Islamic terrorists.
You want Israel to be at war forever.
****
"Partially is another lie."
> There is no apartheid now, and I sincerely hope the Palestinians create
> the
> scenario necessary for the wall to come down. But as I said before, it's
> not
> really part of their long term strategy.
They accept the Saudi Plan.
***
I'm sure they do, since the Saudi Plan gives them everything they've never
been able to get in the past. The Saudi Plan is a non starter, you should
learn why Israel rejects it.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 23, 7:49 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
Clip.
Again, Ratner. An url to a specific post and the specific language you
claim is a lie. I'll get back to you. You've spent the last three
years trying to label me because you can't deal with me in debate.
When you summon up the cohones to actually try, let me know.
BTW, speaking of lies, note that your post has five addresses. You
claimed in the past that you had to eliminate alt.revisionism because
you newsreader only permitted four addresses. You forgot to eliminate
it this time and guess what, all five came through anyway.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Wake up, read the thread.
No creeping territorial aggression, no wall beyond the Green Line. No
attempt to manufacture new borders by fiat, no wall beyond the Green
Line. There isn't a reader here who fails to understand it. That
includes you.
dsharavi
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> On May 19, 10:20 am, Bolt Upright <Nob...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18/05/2010 8:30 PM, dsharavi wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 3:30 pm, "Count 1"<omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Excellent response, Count. You've said most of what needed to be
> > >> said.
>
> > >> Deborah
> > >> ***
>
> > >> Careful... he'll accuse you of being me, then Mirelle will pipe in and
> > >> say
> > >> she's been aware of this fact for quite some time.
> > >> Thanks Deb.
>
> > > Very welcome. But what if he accuses you of being a Mirelle forgery?
>
> > > Deborah
>
> > Unlikely. Mirelle had more class than C(o)unt1 could ever hope for.
>
> retired from these groups a winner.
> ***
>
> Tell ya what, if you retire now I'll declare you a winner too. Deal?
Why not? Alas, Hunter probably won't earn all the accolades earned by
"Mirelle", after she posted the names, addresses, phone numbers,
social security numbers, bank account numbers, etc, of Jewish posters
to these NGs -- and repeatedly praised Bin Laden and others of That
Ilk. That's how "MIrelle" happened to "retire" as "a winner". If
"winner" is what Hunter wants to call it. Canadian authorities, as
well as American authorities, call "Mirelle"'s "winning" by other
names, of course. As an attorney, Hunter can probably think up those
words. Then again, given the level of competence Hunter has displayed
in his posts, maybe he can't.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 24, 9:39 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 7:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 1:10 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
> > and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
> > doesn't merit a response.
>
> Translation: you lied AGAIN when you said:
>
> "He was the *first* to describe the ethnic cleansing of Palestine."
>
> I proved it a lie:
No you didn't. You prove that Morris has been all over the map since
he decided he wanted to stay in Israel after writing his ground
breaking book which could have gotten him lynched. This is the book
and this page contains a lot of very good stuff on the question of the
Naqba including an interview of Ilan Pappe who updated Morris in his
own monograph, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story596.html
>
> "Morris wrote in the Irish Times that "There was no Zionist 'plan' or
> blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of 'ethnic
> cleansing'" and that "the demonisation of Israel is largely based on
> lies"
Read the damned boo, Ratner. Why do you think the Palestinians feature
it as they do?
>
> The Wikipedia entry on Morris gives an excellent summary of each of
> his books. IN NONE OF THEM IS THE IDEA OF ETHNIC CLEANSING PROPOSED.
> HHW IS A LIAR. HE HAS NEVER READ A BOOK OF MORRIS.
You're going down in flames again, Ratner.
>
> Of course, snipping has other advantages for HHW. Here's won't have to
> answer this, for example:
>
> > > and time will tell if the
> > > condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
> > It's a lie. Whether it's a lie which benefits Israel expansionism will
> > depend on the political courage of President Barak Obama. I'm betting
> > on his courage.
>
> Above statement makes no sense. If it's a lie, the wall is permanent.
> If the wall if permanent, in your "mind" it benefits Israeli
> "expansionism". So, why don't you explain to the group, when you say
> "whether it's a lie which benefits...", PRECISELY how, if it's a lie,
> it could NOT benefit Israeli "expansionism"?
I've explained this in detail to Count ! Feel free to read that and
past my words in here.
>
> ***********
>
> OF course, H said something stupid AGAIN, and snipping it away is his
> only escape. Lying, deceiving, snipping, fleeing - H, you're a
> dishonest coward - not particularly admirable, I'd say.
Don't forget the url above. Everyone should read it and click the urls
there. It's a good learning experience. I would also take "Origin" to
Amazon and read the top rated reviews. Prior to Morris, the expulsion
of the Palestinians was a taboo subject. He didn't nail everything
down but he got a lot of it.
I don't like his current persona much but I admire his courage in
"Origins".
dsharavi
wrote:
> Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
> and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
> doesn't merit a response.
Whatever post that may be. Since H snipped it, being obviously afraid
of it, one can't tell.
It's amusing to note H batting his usual .00001. Benny Morris, a neo-
Zionist? He's written about neo-Zionism, certainly, as have Anita
Shapira, Uri Ram, and others. Nobody except the brilliant Herr Watson,
though, has thought to daub Morris as a neo-Zionist.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > You're stumbling in an effort to tie the construction of the wall to a
> > single motive when that's obviously false.
> > ***
> "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Actually I explained to you how it is both to curb terrorism and show the
> > Palestinians their probable future border with Israel.
>
iconoclast @yahoo.com wrote:
> But only after I called you on it.
> ****
>
On May 24, 7:53 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You don't "call" me on anything, you asked a question and I gave you my
> answer. I'm not surprised someone who loves terrorism as much as you do
> feels the need to see a fight when there isn't one around.
Maybe it's the Irish in him? In H's case, make the drunken Irish,
which would also explain his posts after he's nipped into the tequila
a tad moo tany fimes.
Deborah
> And they've never been a nation state, which makes their demands for part of ...
>
> read more »
coaste...@yahoo.com
Without question the Saudi Plan is the "starter". It's been praised by
the President repeatedly.
Rachel's tomb, eh?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Forgot about this one, where you claimed the US is committed to
> keeping Israel's oil tanks "topped off", which I proved a lie, and
> then, in order to try to escape, you made an idiot of yourself by
> vainly trying to claim that "emergency" was "implicit" in the idea of
> "topping off". You fled here as well:
>
>
> The above link has been provided by me more than a few times. You have
> never responded.
I'm glad you reminded me. I'll be back on this.
drahcir
wrote:
> On May 24, 9:04 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 9:39 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 7:29 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 22, 1:10 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
> > > and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
> > > doesn't merit a response.
>
> > Translation: you lied AGAIN when you said:
>
> > "He was the *first* to describe the ethnic cleansing of Palestine."
>
> > I proved it a lie:
>
> No you didn't. You prove that Morris has been all over the map since
> he decided he wanted to stay in Israel after writing his ground
> breaking book which could have gotten him lynched. This is the book
> and this page contains a lot of very good stuff on the question of the
> Naqba including an interview of Ilan Pappe who updated Morris in his
> own monograph, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
>
Will your idiocy and/or confusion never end? The above link is
basically an ad for the book. It does NOTHING to support your
contention that Morris was the "first to describe the ethnic cleansing
of Palestine". NOTHING. ZERO. NADA.
>
>
> > "Morris wrote in the Irish Times that "There was no Zionist 'plan' or
> > blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of 'ethnic
> > cleansing'" and that "the demonisation of Israel is largely based on
> > lies"
>
> Read the damned boo, Ratner. Why do you think the Palestinians feature
> it as they do?
You haven't read the "boo", you silly, lying scum, so you have a
helluva nerve suggesting that I do, of course, in so doing implying
that you have read it. What a disgusting and infantile liar you are.
What is amazing is that you've never read it, and simply ASSUME that
because it's advertised on a Pallie website, it MUST describe ethnic
cleansing. Beyond belief.
Bottom line - you lied about Morris, no book he ever wrote describes
"ethnic cleansing", as anyone who visits the Wikipedia entry on Morris
can ascertain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris
>
>
>
> > The Wikipedia entry on Morris gives an excellent summary of each of
> > his books. IN NONE OF THEM IS THE IDEA OF ETHNIC CLEANSING PROPOSED.
> > HHW IS A LIAR. HE HAS NEVER READ A BOOK OF MORRIS.
>
> You're going down in flames again, Ratner.
LOL! Pathetic masturbator's only refuge is his fantasy world.
>
>
>
> > Of course, snipping has other advantages for HHW. Here's won't have to
> > answer this, for example:
>
> > > > and time will tell if the
> > > > condition of 'temporary' turns out to be a lie or not.
> > > It's a lie. Whether it's a lie which benefits Israel expansionism will
> > > depend on the political courage of President Barak Obama. I'm betting
> > > on his courage.
>
> > Above statement makes no sense. If it's a lie, the wall is permanent.
> > If the wall if permanent, in your "mind" it benefits Israeli
> > "expansionism". So, why don't you explain to the group, when you say
> > "whether it's a lie which benefits...", PRECISELY how, if it's a lie,
> > it could NOT benefit Israeli "expansionism"?
>
> I've explained this in detail to Count ! Feel free to read that and
> past my words in here.
Nope, that's just ANOTHER lie - you never explained it. You CANNOT
explain how, if the wall is permanent, that that wall would not
benefit Israeli "expansionism". I keep telling you, H, you're not
nearly bright enough to squirm away from being caught by way of a
silly lie - I'll catch you EVERY TIME. You never explained it because
there's nothing to explain - you put your foot in your mouth YET
AGAIN, and are too proud to admit it, choosing instead to try a silly
lie. Pathetic.
>
>
>
> > ***********
>
> > OF course, H said something stupid AGAIN, and snipping it away is his
> > only escape. Lying, deceiving, snipping, fleeing - H, you're a
> > dishonest coward - not particularly admirable, I'd say.
>
> Don't forget the url above. Everyone should read it and click the urls
> there. It's a good learning experience. I would also take "Origin" to
> Amazon and read the top rated reviews. Prior to Morris, the expulsion
> of the Palestinians was a taboo subject. He didn't nail everything
> down but he got a lot of it.
Yet more lies - implying yet again you've read a book by Morris - of
course, you haven't. It's just too pathetic for words. I love it.
>
> I don't like his current persona much but I admire his courage in
> "Origins".
LOL! I guess the more I tighten the screws on this screwball, the more
he panics with crap like the above, pretending to be the well-read
authority. You've never read a single book about the history of
Israel, with the possible exception of Pappe.
drahcir
You actually think he knows what neo-Zionism is? He read the term on
some website. His branding Morris as such is par for the course.
Whenever I think he's lost it and can't sink any further, he surprises
me.
drahcir
wrote:
> On May 23, 8:04 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 7:49 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Clip.
>
> Again, Ratner. An url to a specific post and the specific language you
> claim is a lie.
You're just stalling. The links provided specify the lies. You simply
have no more answer now than you did when the lies were originally
presented, and in desperation think you can fake your way out. What do
you expect someone who clicks on the links and sees the lies will
think of you saying that you need specific this and specific that?
Why, they'll think you're a liar! So you've got nothing to lose with
this idiotic tactic.
> I'll get back to you.
No, actually, you won't. If you had any answer, you'd have provided it
in the original threads, or in the repeated links to them. You won't
be back at all - you'll flee just like you have countless times
before.
BTW, it's not "an" URL, it's A URL. A URL is not "to" anything - you
are confusing "link" and "URL".
You've spent the last three
> years trying to label me because you can't deal with me in debate.
Au contraire, citing your lies IS dealing with you in, ahem, debate.
The first thing one does in debate is scan an opponent's presentation
to make sure it's free of lies. Yours NEVER is.
> When you summon up the cohones to actually try, let me know.
LOL! The coward who flees with predictable regularity dares speak of
that which he has never had.
>
> BTW, speaking of lies, note that your post has five addresses. You
> claimed in the past that you had to eliminate alt.revisionism because
> you newsreader only permitted four addresses. You forgot to eliminate
> it this time and guess what, all five came through anyway.
BWAHAHAHA!!! You stupid, stupid and pathetically desperate, um, "man"
- you're simply too stupid to realize how stupid you are. You want so
badly to catch me in a lie that you are willing to make an unspeakable
idiot of yourself. Listen up. I normally use Google to post, and they
have a limit of four groups to crosspost to, PLUS THE ORIGINAL GROUP,
for a total of FIVE GROUPS. If I try to post to more than that, I get
an error. In order to prevent you from making an unspeakable ass of
yourself again, listen further. Sometimes, especially when I need to
quote from a previous post, because Google's search is notoriously
bad, I'll use Agent via the Forte news server. Forte has no limit that
I know of on the number of groups a message can be crossposted to. I
do not take note of how may groups I crosspost to in reply unless, of
course, I get an error. Do you understand now, you insufferable twit,
or do you need further assistance?
drahcir
wrote:
You're - GLAD? Why are you glad? I don't think you're glad in the
slightest. I'll leave it to the group to decide if you're glad, or
rather, if by saying you're glad, you're simply lying again.
> I'll be back on this.
Actually, you won't - that's yet another lie. You've had plenty of
time to "be back", but chose instead to flee.
drahcir
I'll repeat the question - precisely WHAT do you imagine you "called
him" on? (I won't get an answer any more the second time than the
first.)
>
> No creeping territorial aggression, no wall beyond the Green Line. No
> attempt to manufacture new borders by fiat, no wall beyond the Green
> Line. There isn't a reader here who fails to understand it. That
> includes you.
Perhaps the above has some meaning in the Twilight Zone, but in the
world that most participate in, it's flailing, meandering nonsense.
Israel was attacked, Israel occupied territory that arabs could have
gotten back ANY TIME THEY WISHED. Arabs started bombing pizzerias and
buses, Israel made a wall where SHE saw fit. I made a simple and
obvious statement - NO TERRORISM = NO WALL. That's really all anyone
needs to know.
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Okay, when Israel experiences an oil supply problem it's going to cost
us three billion a month for so long as it lasts. That's in the
Stauffer estimate of the costs to us associated with Israel.
coaste...@yahoo.com
It was my phrase. I don't recall ever having seen it before. All I
mean by it is that after taking a lot of heat from inside Israel,
Morris has personally turned to the right. He was unquestionably a
wrecker of the patriotic Israeli historiography. He nevertheless isn't
now days drawing the conclusions from his data that are justified.
Shlaim explains it. Morris is definitely a "New Historian". He was a
ground breaker. I don't know why you guys are so excited about this.
It's old news.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 24, 1:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Clip debris
> > Again, Ratner. An url to a specific post and the specific language you
> > claim is a lie.
>
> You're just stalling.
No, you are afraid of me. You've been running this slimy scam on me
for three years. You don't want me to give you something to get my
teeth into. If I've "lied" you must prove it to the readership. You
can't put your own inflammatory falsehoods in headers and call that
proof. It's a modest proposal: one at a time, give us an url to a
*particular post* and isolate the particular sentence which
constitutes a "lie". Do you think you could get away with refusing to
come clean on that under oath in a deposition? Or under examination at
trial? Guess what, you can't get away with it here either. I was
thinking about it last evening. It may be an open question as to
whether ten percent of your posts opposite me fail to contain
allegations of lying.
The links provided specify the lies. You simply
> have no more answer now than you did when the lies were originally
> presented, and in desperation think you can fake your way out. What do
> you expect someone who clicks on the links and sees the lies will
> think of you saying that you need specific this and specific that?
> Why, they'll think you're a liar! So you've got nothing to lose with
> this idiotic tactic.
Give us the urls to specific posts and the specific language which
constitutes a lie. This is defamation, Ratner. I value my reputation.
You have besmirched it.
>
> > I'll get back to you.
>
> No, actually, you won't.
But I'm here.
If you had any answer, you'd have provided it
> in the original threads, or in the repeated links to them. You won't
> be back at all - you'll flee just like you have countless times
> before.
The problem is not with my disinclination to try proving negatives.
It's with your determination to defame me in public.
>
> BTW, it's not "an" URL, it's A URL. A URL is not "to" anything - you
> are confusing "link" and "URL".
No, I'm just aligning "an" with the U in Url. Try speaking "a url" out
loud.
> You've spent the last three
>
> > years trying to label me because you can't deal with me in debate.
>
> Au contraire, citing your lies IS dealing with you in, ahem, debate.
But the assertion of dishonesty is defamatory, which is not a function
of debate.
> The first thing one does in debate is scan an opponent's presentation
> to make sure it's free of lies. Yours NEVER is.
Straight to the archive. Let's see now, you live near the Park there
in Somerville. Would you mind giving me the street number just for
convenience? How about the phone. Let's be businesslike.
>
> > When you summon up the cohones to actually try, let me know.
>
> LOL! The coward who flees with predictable regularity dares speak of
> that which he has never had.
>
>
>
> > BTW, speaking of lies, note that your post has five addresses. You
> > claimed in the past that you had to eliminate alt.revisionism because
> > you newsreader only permitted four addresses. You forgot to eliminate
> > it this time and guess what, all five came through anyway.
>
> BWAHAHAHA!!! You stupid, stupid and pathetically desperate, um, "man"
> - you're simply too stupid to realize how stupid you are. You want so
> badly to catch me in a lie that you are willing to make an unspeakable
> idiot of yourself. Listen up. I normally use Google to post, and they
> have a limit of four groups to crosspost to, PLUS THE ORIGINAL GROUP,
> for a total of FIVE GROUPS.
Which means that when the post had five groups you didn't have to
delete one rendering it four. You've been continuing to do it.
Apparently there are people on alt.revisionism you would prefer not
see your posts.
If I try to post to more than that, I get
> an error.
That's right, six is an error. But I never post to more than five but
you nonetheless clip alt.revisionism.
In order to prevent you from making an unspeakable ass of
> yourself again, listen further. Sometimes, especially when I need to
> quote from a previous post, because Google's search is notoriously
> bad, I'll use Agent via the Forte news server. Forte has no limit that
> I know of on the number of groups a message can be crossposted to. I
> do not take note of how may groups I crosspost to in reply unless, of
> course, I get an error. Do you understand now, you insufferable twit,
> or do you need further assistance?
"I do not take note." Bullshit, Ratner. Quit clipping my fifth
address. If you use Agent via Forte and haven't screwed with my
addresses there clearly will still be five, my five. The only thing
that can change is if you clip it. Quit doing it. It's an immoral,
slimy, manipulative act.
Here it is again:
coaste...@yahoo.com
It's been explained in detail in a paragraph about eight lines long.
Just look at my response to Count 1. I invite you to take it apart
line by line.
coaste...@yahoo.com
On May 24, 10:30 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On May 24, 4:11 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 1:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> Clip debris
>
> > > Again, Ratner. An url to a specific post and the specific language you
> > > claim is a lie.
>
> > You're just stalling.
>
> No, you are afraid of me. You've been running this slimy scam on me
> for three years. You don't want to give me something to get my
drahcir
You lied - end of story. Replying to yourself will not change that
fact.
drahcir
wrote:
> On May 24, 4:11 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 1:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> Clip debris
>
> > > Again, Ratner. An url to a specific post and the specific language you
> > > claim is a lie.
>
> > You're just stalling.
>
> No, you are afraid of me.
Whatever, H. I'm bored with you. You're pitifully weak, flailing
around, trying to escape the inescapable. The links provide exact
description of your lies. That's why you fled from them originally.
They are there for all to read. If you had anything to say, you'd pull
a quote from my cite, and refute it. But of course you can't do that -
they are irrefutable. So, as anyone can see below, you'll chatter away
like a hen simply to try to escape.
You've been running this slimy scam on me
> for three years. You don't want me to give you something to get my
> teeth into. If I've "lied" you must prove it to the readership.
It's been proven. In every link there is proof of a lie of yours. You
won't take on even ONE of them specifically for one obvious reason -
you are lost. It escapes no one that you cackle away, and have yet to
attempt to refute just ONE of the many lies of yours I linked to in
this thread. Why not cut and paste JUST ONE of them, and triumphantly
say to the group, "Look here! Does anyone see a lie of mine here?
Ratner is the liar!" Do it or PLEASE just go away.
You
> can't put your own inflammatory falsehoods in headers and call that
> proof.
I don't. The proof is in the linked-to posts. I'm going to be very
patient with you. You can make as many asinine, pitiful statements as
you want - I'm going to treat you like the mental defective that you
are, and slowly explain to you that each link goes to a post in which
I caught you lying. That catching was irrefutable. Were you able to
refute, you would do so here and now, but you haven't even ATTEMPTED
that, since you know what the outcome will be. So you'll try more
cackling. Let's see what other nonsense lies below.
It's a modest proposal: one at a time, give us an url to a
> *particular post*
EVERY LINK PROVIDED IS TO A PARTICULAR POST. ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A
LUNATIC? No, you're just panicking and can't think of anything to do
except play the alzheimic fool. No problem.
and isolate the particular sentence which
> constitutes a "lie".
EVERY LINKED-TO POST SPECIFIES THE LIE OF YOURS CONTAINED THEREIN. You
are looking sillier than any poster I've ever witnessed at this stage.
Do you think you could get away with refusing to
> come clean on that under oath in a deposition?
The evidence is there and everyone, including you, knows it. Again,
EVERY LINK links to a SPECIFIC POST that contains a SPECIFIC LIE of
yours that is clearly delineated by me. EVERY ONE. Would you like
proof that this is all a desperate stall on your part? Fine. Here it
is:
Were this ridiculous ploy of yours NOT just a desperate stall, you
could have very easily picked any link I provided, cut and pasted it,
and tried to demonstrate to the group that there was no lie of yours
specified. But of course, you can't do that, since you know full well
that each contains a specific lie of yours. See how easily I crush
your ridiculous attempt at defense by senility?
Let's look at an example from just one of the links I provided, shall
we?
The opening quote is yours, speaking to Zev:
"What I mean is you [Israelis] have been engaged in
blatant criminal behavior associated with what Ratner now calls theft
or stealing of another country's land for well over a half
century,..."
Do you deny that you made the above statement? In it you say that I
"now call" Israel's territorial gains "theft", whereas in the very
thread that you had the nerve to post this, I said:
"The acquisition of territory by simply stealing it
happened in the history of our country [USA], but not in that of
Israel.
Israel would have been happy with partition, would have been happy
with 1948 borders. Arabs gambled with aggressive war and they lost.
That's a far cry from stealing, which, I repeat, is what we did."
That is just ONE of the many posts I linked to. You say the posts I
linked to are not "specific". Is the above not specific enough for
you? Would you care to deny that the above is proof that you are not
only a liar, but since it was posted not to me, but to someone else, a
coward, too? Please, do your best to refute my proof. I'll be waiting.
DO IT HERE IN REPLY.
Or under examination at
> trial? Guess what, you can't get away with it here either. I was
> thinking about it last evening. It may be an open question as to
> whether ten percent of your posts opposite me fail to contain
> allegations of lying.
Hey, the solution is simple. Don't lie. One little correction. I don't
know about the percentage you cited, for all i know you could be
right, however, my posts aren't "allegations" - they are proofs,
exactly like the cited one above. And they stand until you refute
them.
>
> The links provided specify the lies. You simply
>
> > have no more answer now than you did when the lies were originally
> > presented, and in desperation think you can fake your way out. What do
> > you expect someone who clicks on the links and sees the lies will
> > think of you saying that you need specific this and specific that?
> > Why, they'll think you're a liar! So you've got nothing to lose with
> > this idiotic tactic.
>
> Give us the urls to specific posts and the specific language which
> constitutes a lie. This is defamation, Ratner. I value my reputation.
> You have besmirched it.
See above. You know, it's kind of funny to see you crying like this.
You brought this on yourself. When you bawl about your, ahem,
"reputation", don't you find it ironic that, while I do nothing except
point out your lies and allow you to make a complete ass of yourself,
you, in your fantastic "satirical" post to SRI, a post you were so
proud of that you copied and pasted it here, attempted to get me offed
by some wacko muslim by way of total and complete fabrication? What
was it you called me, "a militant, politically active Jewish Zionist",
wasn't it? That when you know full well I am neither politically
active nor militant. Listen, when you sue me for defamation, the above
is bound to come out in my countersuit. Do you think the judge will
regard it as "satirical" like Ms Jefferson did? You'd better hope so.
Anyway, when you pulled this disgusting maneuver, you didn't hear me
start whimpering like a little girl who just lost her dolly, did you?
You have your "morals", if we can call them that, and I have mine.
>
> > > I'll get back to you.
>
> > No, actually, you won't.
>
> But I'm here.
You're here, but you have yet to refute even one of the proofs of your
lying that I provided.
>
> If you had any answer, you'd have provided it
>
> > in the original threads, or in the repeated links to them. You won't
> > be back at all - you'll flee just like you have countless times
> > before.
>
> The problem is not with my disinclination to try proving negatives.
LOL! You obviously do not comprehend that concept. There's no need for
you to prove a negative, i.e. to prove that you did not lie. What you
have to do is refute my proofs that you did lie. Do you comprehend the
difference, or do you need further assistance?
> It's with your determination to defame me in public.
You're confused, H. I don't defame you. You do. I just point out the
defaming bits, that's all.
>
>
> > BTW, it's not "an" URL, it's A URL. A URL is not "to" anything - you
> > are confusing "link" and "URL".
>
> No, I'm just aligning "an" with the U in Url. Try speaking "a url" out
> loud.
Works fine for me, but then again I don't have slurred speech. Here,
this may help you:
"An" goes before all words that begin with vowels:
* an apricot
* an egg
* an Indian
* an orbit
* an uprising
With two exceptions: When u makes the same sound as the y in you, or o
makes the same sound as w in won, then a is used.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/591/01/
Let me know if that helps you understand - if not, um, "get back to
me".
>
> > You've spent the last three
>
> > > years trying to label me because you can't deal with me in debate.
>
> > Au contraire, citing your lies IS dealing with you in, ahem, debate.
>
> But the assertion of dishonesty is defamatory, which is not a function
> of debate.
I am not "asserting", I am DEMONSTRATING and PROVING your lies. If you
don't like getting caught lying, don't lie. I understand you were a
lawyer of sorts, so find it curious that you apparently don't
understand that one can only be defamed by falsehoods. For example,
newspapers did not defame John Edwards when they published stories of
his adultery. It would only be defamation if he did not have the
affairs. You lied, I caught you. You want to make a case for
defamation? Here's the best way to do it. Refute my proofs of your
lies. Do that and I will admit error. Simple. But, of course it's
obvious that if you could have done that, you would have. So, here we
are.
>
> > The first thing one does in debate is scan an opponent's presentation
> > to make sure it's free of lies. Yours NEVER is.
>
> Straight to the archive. Let's see now, you live near the Park there
> in Somerville. Would you mind giving me the street number just for
> convenience? How about the phone. Let's be businesslike
LOL!
> > > When you summon up the cohones to actually try, let me know.
>
> > LOL! The coward who flees with predictable regularity dares speak of
> > that which he has never had.
>
> > > BTW, speaking of lies, note that your post has five addresses. You
> > > claimed in the past that you had to eliminate alt.revisionism because
> > > you newsreader only permitted four addresses. You forgot to eliminate
> > > it this time and guess what, all five came through anyway.
>
> > BWAHAHAHA!!! You stupid, stupid and pathetically desperate, um, "man"
> > - you're simply too stupid to realize how stupid you are. You want so
> > badly to catch me in a lie that you are willing to make an unspeakable
> > idiot of yourself. Listen up. I normally use Google to post, and they
> > have a limit of four groups to crosspost to, PLUS THE ORIGINAL GROUP,
> > for a total of FIVE GROUPS.
>
> Which means that when the post had five groups you didn't have to
> delete one rendering it four. You've been continuing to do it.
> Apparently there are people on alt.revisionism you would prefer not
> see your posts.
H, you're simply mistaken. I've only deleted groups when I get an
error from Google, and I only get an error from Google when the post
is set to go to more than 5 groups. <yawn> This is simply beyond
belief. I've never visited alt.revisionism - I have no clue what they
revise there, so if I had to get rid of a group, I suppose it was the
first to go. I can't even believe that I'm engaging in this discussion
- scary.
>
> If I try to post to more than that, I get
>
> > an error.
>
> That's right, six is an error. But I never post to more than five but
> you nonetheless clip alt.revisionism.
You are simply out of your mind or lying. No third choice.
>
> In order to prevent you from making an unspeakable ass of
>
> > yourself again, listen further. Sometimes, especially when I need to
> > quote from a previous post, because Google's search is notoriously
> > bad, I'll use Agent via the Forte news server. Forte has no limit that
> > I know of on the number of groups a message can be crossposted to. I
> > do not take note of how may groups I crosspost to in reply unless, of
> > course, I get an error. Do you understand now, you insufferable twit,
> > or do you need further assistance?
>
> "I do not take note." Bullshit, Ratner. Quit clipping my fifth
> address. If you use Agent via Forte and haven't screwed with my
> addresses there clearly will still be five, my five. The only thing
> that can change is if you clip it. Quit doing it. It's an immoral,
> slimy, manipulative act.
Why not save bandwidth and simply announce to ALL FIVE GROUPS that you
are insane? You know what? Just to irritate you, from now on I'm going
to delete AR.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 10:52 am, "Count1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The sharp decline in suicide bombings
>
On this:
coaste...@yahoo.com
Here's what you've avoided assiduously through this blizzard of filth:
Count 1 didn't like my characterization of the Israeli assurance that
the Wall was "temporary". I called that an Israeli lie.
He then said I had lied by calling the Israelis liars:
> "It's a lie." That is a statement which you know isn't true.
coaste...@yahoo.com
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 24, 11:30 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
Don't leave our discussion about Benny Morris yet, Ratner. Here's an
interesting article about him. It supports what I tole you about him.
Stick around.
Israel Revisited
Post Your Comment eMail to a friend
כדי לתרגם עברית
Posted on March 14, 2007
Benny Morris, Veteran 'New Historian' of the Modern Jewish State's
Founding, Finds Himself Ideologically Back Where It All Began
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, March 11, 2007; D01
LI-ON, Israel The path behind historian Benny Morris's house climbs
through a cedar and pine forest, passing stone walls and wine presses
dating to the time of the second Jewish Temple two millenniums ago. In
the distance, the misty ridges of the Judean hills appear, the spine
of the historic Jewish heartland.
Morris, a short, stout man of 58 with a fluff of graying curls, points
to a patch of red-roofed houses where the Arab town of Ajjur once
stood. Jewish forces destroyed it in 1948, the year both he and the
modern state of Israel were born. It is a history that has haunted the
historian, launching a career and a personal political odyssey that
much of Israel has followed in recent years.
"Had the war ended more definitively and logically demographically,
everyone would have been better for it," Morris says amid the
battlefields of Israel's first war. "Not only Israel and the
Palestinians, but all of the Middle East."
Since Israel's inception, the young nation has tried to control the
telling of its story, a chronicle of genocide survivors bravely
defending their right to return to and settle their ancestral lands.
In the official version of Israel's founding war, taught for decades
in school textbooks, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their
homes on the orders of Arab leaders and military commanders.
Morris, emerging two decades ago at the head of a group of guerrilla
scholars known as the "new historians," told another, more complex
story excavated from the state's official archives. He concluded that
although many Palestinians did choose to leave their homes, Jewish
forces also conducted an orchestrated campaign to expel them,
sometimes brutally, to make way for a Jewish state.
With the 1987 publication of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee
Problem, 1947-1949," Morris found himself on a path that led to
academic acclaim, an Israeli jail cell for refusing army call-up
orders to perform reserve duty and, in recent years, despair over the
violence and futile peace efforts. Along the way, his critical
perspective seems to have reversed course, the same slow spin that has
hardened many Israelis against the Palestinians and now complicates
the Bush administration's current bid to revive a peace process
between them.
As he embarks on a new book project to explore whether two states for
two peoples is still a viable option for resolving the long conflict,
Morris has come to believe peace with the Palestinians and the larger
Arab world may not be possible, especially as radical Islamic
movements that deny Israel's right to exist gain ground in the region.
He holds out hope that a stable Palestinian state might one day emerge
and ease hostilities. But he says he can just as easily imagine a day
when Israel will have to drive more Arabs from the occupied
territories or face expulsion itself.
"We are an outpost of the West, as they see it and as we also see
ourselves, in a largely Islamic, backward and in some ways even
barbaric area," Morris says in his trademark strafing-fire delivery.
"The Muslims are busy killing people, and killing people for reasons
that in the West are regarded as idiotic. There is a problem here with
Islam."
Or, some say, there is a problem with Benny Morris.
His opinions have stunned many new-historian colleagues, who, until
Morris began speaking up during the second Palestinian uprising, had
assumed his political views conformed with their own. Avi Shlaim, an
Oxford University professor, says it was "a psychological process --
the suicide bombings, the violence -- that sent him off the rails."
"There are two Benny Morrises," he says. "There is the first-rate
archival historian whose work is of utmost importance in understanding
the Israeli-Arab conflict. And there is the third-rate political
analyst who has little understanding of what is driving the modern
conflict."
Roots of Rejectionism
Morris was born on a kibbutz to British immigrants whose Marxist
beliefs placed them on the fringe of the socialist Labor Zionist
movement that then dominated politics.
The family spent much of his childhood in Jerusalem and New York,
where his father was assigned as an Israeli diplomat. He finished
studies at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and headed to Cambridge,
where he received a doctorate in European history.
He returned to Israel in time to witness the 1982 invasion of Lebanon,
first as a journalist with the Jerusalem Post and then as a soldier
when his reserve division was called up to participate in the assault
on Beirut. Along the way, Morris visited the Rashidia refugee camp
outside the southern city of Tyre, his first encounter with the
Palestinian refugees who would become the focus of his research in the
coming decade.
He was working for the newspaper when he received the kind of offer
that can make a career.
Veterans of the Palmach, the elite Jewish forces that fought in
Israel's founding war, invited the ambitious young journalist into
their archive to write their official history. He plunged into the
secret planning documents, battlefield orders and other material
detailing the group's actions during the 1948-49 conflict that Israel
calls the War of Independence.
Several months later, Morris was kicked out of the Palmach archives
when veterans began doubting the wisdom of entrusting their history to
a reporter with a doctorate from Cambridge University.
By fortunate coincidence, Israel's government also had begun
declassifying its wartime archives. Sifting through the files, Morris
came across a Foreign Ministry document rejecting reports that Jewish
militiamen killed more than 100 Arab men, women and children in Deir
Yassin, a village on the northern edge of Jerusalem. The memo was
essentially a series of talking points distributed to pre-state Jewish
diplomatic missions on how to deny what became one of the war's most
notorious events.
It was written by his father.
Morris believes he wrote the memo after turning hawkish following the
Arab refusal of the United Nations' partition of Palestine in November
1947, which outlined the borders of a Jewish state.
"I think it was the weight of Arab rejectionism that pushed him
there," Morris says.
The killings and destruction of many former Arab villages in April
1948 were later condemned by the pre-state Jewish government. But the
events -- including what Morris described as a "victory parade" by
Jewish militiamen, who drove some of the bodies through the streets
before dumping them in Arab East Jerusalem -- prompted many Arabs to
flee their homes in fear.
Morris's research also confirmed some aspects of Israel's official
version of the war, including the scope of orders issued by Arab
military commanders for Palestinians to leave their homes and return
with their invading forces. His book noted that Arab troops also
carried out brutal attacks on Jews, including an ambush of a convoy of
doctors, medical staff and patients in the days after Deir Yassin that
killed some 70 civilians.
The refugee crisis was "largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears
and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first
Israeli-Arab war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of
Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians," Morris wrote.
His conclusion that the Palestinian exodus was not entirely voluntary
pricked the Israeli national conscience and gave moral weight to the
claims of about 700,000 original refugees demanding to return to their
homes. For decades, Israel has fiercely resisted this claim for a
right of return, fearing an influx of Arab Palestinians that would
threaten Israel's Jewish majority.
"There comes a stage in any revolutionary process when the movement
relaxes its hold on the official narrative," Morris says. "The
difference is that when that moment came in Israel, our long struggle
with the Arabs remained an existential threat, as it still does
today."
The 'New Historians'
Morris's book appeared as the first Palestinian uprising burst from
the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, focusing Israeli
attention on a subject rarely mentioned in preceding years when the
Israeli and Palestinian economies and cultures were growing together.
Several other critical accounts of Israel's founding, among them Ilan
Pappe's "Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" and Shlaim's
"Collusion Across the Jordan," were published at the same time. In a
1988 magazine article, Morris labeled the scholars "new historians,"
as the public outcry inside Israel grew against them.
"I suppose I viewed it as a self-defense mechanism," Morris says of
his coining of the term. "I realized I had written the most radical of
the books . . . in terms of revisionist thinking. I felt very exposed
-- here was this guy thrusting against the weight of Israeli academia
and historical correctness. I felt more comfort being part of a
group."
Until then, much of Israel's wartime history had been written by
participants, whose narratives centered on the Jewish people fighting
to secure a haven from persecution following the Holocaust. One of
them was Shabtai Teveth, a prize-winning Israeli journalist and
biographer of the state's founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion.
Teveth, a Palmach veteran, mounted a campaign to discredit the new
historians. In Israeli newspapers, he called their work "a farrago of
distortions, omissions, tendentious readings and outright
falsifications" whose intent was to undermine the Zionist project to
secure a Jewish state.
Amid the controversy, Morris's artillery unit was called up in 1988
for reserve duty in the restive West Bank city of Nablus. He viewed
the Palestinian demonstrations, mostly stone-throwing crowds and
strikes, as legitimate protest against the occupation of the West Bank
and Gaza Strip, which Israel had controlled since the 1967 Middle East
war.
He refused to serve, spending three weeks in jail instead.
Despite his book's critical success, which came mostly outside the
country, Morris could not secure a university post in Israel after its
publication. He announced in a 1996 newspaper interview his intention
to leave for the United States.
Ezer Weizman, a hero of the 1948 war and Israel's president at the
time, summoned Morris to his office that afternoon. He asked him if he
supported Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. After receiving
Morris's word that he did, the president arranged a post for him at
Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, where he lectures today.
Through the hopeful years following the 1993 Oslo accords between
Israel and the Palestinians, Morris wrote his highly acclaimed history
of the Zionist movement, "Righteous Victims." The title suggested the
conflicting Israeli and Palestinian views of their roles in history.
"The claim to be the true victim," new historian Shlaim said in a
lecture at Georgetown University a few years later, "is a major
component of both national narratives."
The second Palestinian uprising broke out a year after that book's
publication in 1999.
"It sent people politically, like a centrifuge, spinning in all
directions," Morris says. "It polarized the Israeli left, driving
those inclined to the far left farther that way and those of us in the
Zionist left in the other direction."
In Morris's view, shared by many Israelis, the late Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat was responsible for the collapse of U.S.-brokered peace
talks at the time and the violence that followed.
Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat most of the West
Bank, Gaza and parts of East Jerusalem. But that left unresolved the
demand of refugees to return to their homes, a problem that is "the
most unsolvable because it is wrapped up in identity," Morris
believes.
"My feeling during the first intifada was that they wanted us off
their backs," he says of the Palestinians. "My sense of the second
intifada was that they both wanted us off their backs and they wanted
to destroy us. Something had changed within the Palestinians."
Morris's research had long suggested to him that the Arabs would never
accept a Jewish state in Palestine. The second uprising, spearheaded
by the radical Islamic movement Hamas, confirmed his view that "Arab
rejectionism has always been very deep and very religious."
He began speaking out in interviews. Among his more surprising
contentions was that Ben-Gurion should have expelled more Palestinians
during the 1948 war to leave a stronger Jewish majority between the
Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
"If the man was already driving out people, maybe he should have gone
the whole hog," Morris says now. "Perhaps in the end population
exchanges and transfers, although they may have caused great suffering
at the time, may in the long run have been better for everyone
concerned."
Pappe, a senior lecturer at the University of Haifa, shared countless
lecture hall stages with Morris after their first books appeared, and
the men became friends. Now they no longer speak, their relationship
poisoned by a series of angry public exchanges rooted in their vastly
different interpretations of Israel's history.
"Morris bothers me for what he represents, not as a person," Pappe
says during a visit to his cluttered university office. "The extremes
he is willing to go to justify Zionism and the prejudice he shows
against the Palestinians is shared by so many Jews."
Trying to Find Justice
In worn khakis and a flannel shirt, Benny Morris walks the forest path
each day with his two frisky dogs, Luca and Kawa, and tends to a yard
of lemon and mango trees.
His general history of 1948 will be published later this year. His
previous book was a revised version of his first, titled "The Birth of
the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited." Drawing on declassified
military archives and the minutes of cabinet meetings, it is nearly
twice the length of the original. It gives "a much better picture of
what happened, although the conclusions are remarkably similar,"
Morris says.
He soon will begin an examination of whether the Mideast conflict
should be resolved by forging a single nation of Arabs and Jews or two
states for two peoples.
"Two states is the only solution with an element of justice," Morris
says. "But there are two other realistic solutions -- one is that the
Jews will kick out all the Arabs across the river, and the other is
that the Arabs will throw the Jews into the sea. I'm not sure one of
them won't happen."
The book, he says, will be his last on the Middle East.
"The problem that existed here in 1947 remains today -- the Arabs
don't accept Israel's presence," Morris says. "A major switch in mind-
set must occur for peace to come. That is the sine qua non of any
peace agreement. All the rest -- the road map, the peace process -- is
just footwork."
Click here to read the article at the Washington Post
Disclaimer
coaste...@yahoo.com
>
>
>> > I don't like his current persona much but I admire his courage......
>
>
> LOL! I guess the more I tighten the screws on this screwball, the more
> he panics with crap like the above, pretending to be the well-read
> authority. You've never read a single book about the history of
> Israel, with the possible exception of Pappe.
You'll recall that I've advised you how to go about arguing the case
for Israel. Here, Benny Morris does it for you. It's just that he
doesn't mention the Holocaust much. Mind you I don't guarantee it
will work:
drahcir
wrote:
> On May 24, 10:50 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 9:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 2:14 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 8:02 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Forgot about this one, where you claimed the US is committed to
> > > > > keeping Israel's oil tanks "topped off", which I proved a lie, and
> > > > > then, in order to try to escape, you made an idiot of yourself by
> > > > > vainly trying to claim that "emergency" was "implicit" in the idea of
> > > > > "topping off". You fled here as well:
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.mideast/msg/7f29ed52b0cd...
>
> > > > > The above link has been provided by me more than a few times. You have
> > > > > never responded.
>
> > > > I'm glad you reminded me. I'll be back on this.
>
> > > Okay, when Israel experiences an oil supply problem it's going to cost
> > > us three billion a month for so long as it lasts. That's in the
> > > Stauffer estimate of the costs to us associated with Israel.
>
> > You lied - end of story. Replying to yourself will not change that
> > fact.
>
> Here's what you've avoided assiduously through this blizzard of filth:
>
> Count 1 didn't like my characterization of the Israeli assurance that
> the Wall was "temporary". I called that an Israeli lie.
Excuse me, H, but you seem to have become confused. The post to which
you purported to reply was about your lie about Israeli oil tanks, not
about the wall. You said you'd be back on it, remember? If you wish to
discuss your nonsense about the wall, please do so in reply to the
appropriate post. Thanks.
drahcir
No, actually, it's not.
Here's what you said:
> > > > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > > > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.mideast/msg/7f29ed52b0cda944
"Topping off" has nothing to do with Israel experiencing an emergency,
modified in this latest iteration of your pathetic attempts to
disguise what you said to "an oil supply problem". (The funniest was
when you said that "emergency" is "implicit" in "topping off". That
was rich!) As everyone knows, topping off has NOTHING to do with an
"oil supply problem". In fact, if there is a problem, "topping off"
CANNOT OCCUR, by definition. Topping off ONLY occurs in a non-problem
situation. Also, let's take a closer look at the verb you used,
"keep". What does that verb mean? To "keep" doing something implies an
ongoing process. So your clear implication is that the US *keeps*
topping off Israel's oil tanks - whenever they get a little low, the
US tops them off. We've been through this already, H. By repeating
this silly attempt at escape, you just look, well, silly. You'd do
best just to admit your lie, withdraw it with an apology (you could
just say you got carried away a little), and we can all move on.
drahcir
reply with this irrelevant article had NOTHING to do with Morris - the
word Morris NEVER APPEARS IN IT. You posted the Morris article in
reply to it in a desperate attempt to avoid answering it. In case you
forgot, it responded to your claims that my proofs of your lying were
not specific. I even cut and pasted one of the linked-to proofs to
make it easy for you to attempt to refute. But in reply, you post an
article about Morris, obviously deciding that being perceived as
confused is preferable to attempting to deal with the post. Before I
here paste the post you snipped, I'll tell you that re Morris, I'm
not interested in articles, H. I'm interested in the fact that you
lied when you said that Morris said that there was ethnic cleansing in
Palestine in the forties. He has never said such a thing. If you can
prove me wrong, do so. If not, quit bullshitting (I may as well ask
you to quit breathing.)
Now, here is the post that you were SUPPOSED to reply to:
On May 24, 11:30 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
drahcir
Excuse me, but you are replying to the wrong poster again. You should
direct your lofty thoughts to Count 1. I understand you have abandoned
your hallucination that he and I are the same. That seems like a
healthy step to me.
<snip>
drahcir
wrote:
> >> > I don't like his current persona much but I admire his courage......
>
> > LOL! I guess the more I tighten the screws on this screwball, the more
> > he panics with crap like the above, pretending to be the well-read
> > authority. You've never read a single book about the history of
> > Israel, with the possible exception of Pappe.
>
> You'll recall that I've advised you how to go about arguing the case
> for Israel. Here, Benny Morris does it for you. It's just that he
> doesn't mention the Holocaust much. Mind you I don't guarantee it
> will work:
Thanks for admitting you haven't read anything of value on the history
of Israel. Regarding ANY MATERIAL about Morris, you need to stop
posting irrelevant "articles". I claim that you lied when you said
that Morris referred to the Jews "ethnically cleansing" the arabs in
the forties. All you need to do is cite a sentence where Morris states
clearly that the jews were ethnically cleansing, and you will have
proven me wrong - you will have proven that you did not lie. Until you
do that, my claim of your lie stands.
> them was Shabtai ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
wrote:
Well, that's not what you said a few days ago:
"How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
Benny Morris?"
Funny how things change over the course of a few days, eh, H?
He was a
> ground breaker. I don't know why you guys are so excited about this.
> It's old news.
You do realize that you sound insane, right?
dsharavi
wrote:
> On May 24, 4:11 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 1:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> Clip debris
>
> > > Again, Ratner. An url to a specific post and the specific language you
> > > claim is a lie.
>
> > You're just stalling.
>
> No, you are afraid of me.
Talk about senile dementia.
Deborah