# Jets Rookie Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 9, 2013)

NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine

Glad I'm not a Jets fan.  I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster.  I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line.  And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 9, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Glad I'm not a Jets fan.  I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster.  I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line.  And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.



*Not good. I foresee much controversy.*


----------



## MJB12741 (Jul 9, 2013)

I think it's wonderful the Jets have him to show all Americans on our own soil first hand what Palestinian mentality is all about that the USA & Israel have to deal with.






Bloodrock44 said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> ...


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 9, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Glad I'm not a Jets fan.  I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster.  I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line.  And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.


Now, us Dallas Cowboy fans don't have to worry about this kind of shenanigans. Too bad the Cowboys don't play the Jets this season.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jul 9, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> ...



Yea that's not a very smart thing for a first year player to be doing.  Bad publicity right from the get go.

Also... DIE COWBOYS!  Burgundy and Gold dynasty time baby!


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 9, 2013)

He's lucky he was not drafted by the Patriots, Vikings, Eagles, Falcons, Dolphins, Giants, Browns, Buccaneers or Redskins, all of whom have a Jewish owner, or the Bears, who have a Jewish Head Coach.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 9, 2013)

MJB12741 said:


> I think it's wonderful the Jets have him to show all Americans on our own soil first hand what Palestinian mentality is all about that the USA & Israel have to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Right on MJB...this guy is going to play in a town where his heroes murdered 3000 innocent  people and he's going to fan the flames. Real smart.  *


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 9, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Glad I'm not a Jets fan.  I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster.  I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line.  And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.



A man supports his country. Lots of people do.

Where is the controversy?


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 9, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> ...



*I thought he was an American.*


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 9, 2013)

The zionist jews go ballistic when people point out the truth about Israel's racist genocide against the Palestinian people.    ..


----------



## Connery (Jul 9, 2013)

Ok a football player voiced his views on a political situation......and he is a on the J-E-T-S. What the hell does that tell ya....


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 9, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


Hey, I meant to say "Dallas Cowboys *Cheerleaders* fans".


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jul 9, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Alright alright that's perfectly copastetic


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 9, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> The zionist jews go ballistic when people point out the truth about Israel's racist genocide against the Palestinian people.    ..



Do you like irony?

Larry Thomas, the actor who appears in your avatar, is Jewish.

What's an anti-Semite like you to do?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 9, 2013)

Connery said:


> Ok a football player voiced his views on a political situation......and he is a on the J-E-T-S. What the hell does that tell ya?]



That militant Islamists and jets are a bad combination?  Yeah... I think New Yorkers already know that.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 9, 2013)

Connery said:


> Ok a football player voiced his views on a political situation......and he is a on the J-E-T-S. What the hell does that tell ya....



*They're thinking about bringing back Joe Namath?*


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 9, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > The zionist jews go ballistic when people point out the truth about Israel's racist genocide against the Palestinian people.    ..
> ...


I have nothing against Jews.....just zionists.

True story Shlomo   ..


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 9, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> A man supports his country. Lots of people do.
> 
> Where is the controversy?



He was born in Brooklyn.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 9, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



99% of Jews are Zionists.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jul 9, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



THAT is how you shut down productive conversation


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 9, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


What I find amusing is that on another USMessageBoard forum just the other day, Sunni Man said that the CIA and Mossad were behind the uprising in Egypt.  Only a Muslim or Muslim convert would think of such a thing.  Speaking of genocides, I don't think anyone will ever see Sunni Man admit that his newly-adopted brethren have murdered millions and millions of innocent people, nor will Sunni Man admit that his fellow Sunnis are always busy blowing up Shiites.  However, we have to remember if an Israeli Jew harms one hair on a Palestinian's head, then it is genocide.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 9, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


How is that posible?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 9, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



And there are Americans who support Israel.

Do you have a point?


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 9, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> The zionist jews go ballistic when people point out the truth about Israel's racist genocide against the Palestinian people.    ..



There is no 'truth' to be found in supporting Islamic racist terrorists like HAMAS.   HAMAS has held hostage the entire population of Gaza, all because they refuse to stop deliberately seeking to murder Israeli civilians.

By calling the HAMAS propaganda 'the truth', a person is supporting their terrorist activities.

It *should* be possible to support the rights of Palestinian people without demonizing Israel and Zionism.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 9, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



what i find amusing is we have an american citisen of palestinian descent being criticized by a zionist zealot nd bigot (who, i am sure, believes israel is a "beacon of democracy"), because this man. oday aboushi, chooses to exercise his first amendment right to lawfully assemble with whom he wants and to voice his opinion in a peaceful manner.

what i find even more amusing is that the person critical of this man exercising his constitutional rights in a completely appropriate manner is being thanked by two individuals who have taken an oath to protect and defend that constitution. they should be ashamed. they won't be.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 9, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


"Oday Aboushi has been touted as being the first Palestinian-American player in the National Football League (NFL), but his radical behavior since being drafted by the New York Jets less than three months ago could get him sent home early. His latest infraction was made as he gave a speech at a radical Muslim conference sponsored by a group denying Israels right to exist and associated with blatantly anti-Semitic and terrorist propaganda."


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 9, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


What I find amusing is that you are not in Egypt helping the Muslim Brotherhood out.  Perhaps you feel like SunniMan does -- that it was Mossad and the CIA behind the unrest in Egypt.  Actually, I am more concerned with this than what that Palestinian guy said, and perhaps you can give this Turk's Security Guards lessons in how to shoot better.   And, Seal, old man, when we see who thanks you and who you thank, just what do  you believe we think about that?
World?s ?Most Dangerous Islamist? Alive, Well, and Living in Pennsylvania |


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 9, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



What does the Constitution have to do with this?  The rights you reference are protected against government interference.  Mr. Aboushi is not exempt from criticism by private individuals.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jul 9, 2013)

Oh Seal, you're still here.  Praise the Lord, I thought you left us again.  Hey Seal tell us how wonderful it is to have such a Palestinian here on American soil who's people danced in the streets & passed out candy on 911 & vow death to the USA?   Oh by the way, if you don't reply, I will understand.  You see, as an American you have that right.





reabhloideach said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



What radical behavior? Why is he different from, say, Cuban Americans or Porto Rico Americans? They are all working to free their homeland. I don't see a problem.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


Except the Cubans are not using terrorism as a talking point. And FYI, the Puerto Ricans are shooting for statehood, Harold.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> What radical behavior? Why is he different from, say, Cuban Americans or Porto Rico Americans? They are all working to free their homeland. I don't see a problem.



If you are so thick-skulled that you can't see the difference, that's your problem.  I'm sure you can custom order a Oboushi jersey and wear it every Sunday.  

Those of us who oppose people who (1) deny Israel's right to exist and (2) promote organizations that sponsor terrorism will hope that the Jets cut him and that he moves to Gaza so he can be with his compatriots.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



*I'm afraid any point would fly over your head, Iinman. You said he supports his country when inferring that he supports Palestine. It was mentioned that he was born in Brooklyn, which means he should be supporting America. The sad fact is that many hyphenated Americans support their country of origin rather than America. EG: blame America firsters like you.*


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> I'm afraid any point would fly over your head, Iinman. You said he supports his country when inferring that he supports Palestine. It was mentioned that he was born in Brooklyn, which means he should be supporting America. The sad fact is that many hyphenated Americans support their country of origin rather than America. EG: blame America firsters like you.


Yet, a very large number of American jews also have duel citizenship with Israel.

And many of the zionist loving jews on this thread support the fascist state of Israel with a passion.   ..


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Yet, a very large number of American jews also have duel citizenship with Israel.
> 
> And many of the zionist loving jews on this thread support the fascist state of Israel with a passion.   ..



I am a Zionist, and a Jew, and an American, and these three aspects of who I am have never clashed or resulted in any conflict of interest.  

I am perfectly capable of contributing to the American economy with my work efforts, paying my taxes to the U.S. Government, and putting a little bit aside to support agencies like the JNF.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

The JNF is a terrorist organization with a goal to exterminate the Palestinian people and steal all of their land.  ..


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> The JNF is a terrorist organization with a goal to exterminate the Palestinian people and steal all of their land.  ..



Really?  That's funny, because I went to the JNF's National Conference last Spring and there weren't any break-out sessions about extermination of "Palestinians" or stealing land.

There were break-out sessions about innovations in agriculture, the construction of hospitals, exchange student programs, development of green space in urban areas, water conservation and the construction of dual purpose bomb shelter/youth activity centers.  No discussions of "Palestinian" extermination, though.

Maybe that will be discussed at next year's conference, right after the presentations on the Jewish control over the world banking system and plans to infiltrate the CIA with Mossad agents.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...



US citizens can still be patriotic and support their homeland. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Where is the conflict?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-tnU_5iTwU]RT on the Cuban Five - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> The zionist jews go ballistic when people point out the truth about Israel's racist genocide against the Palestinian people.    ..




I have not heard one thing from any Jews that they want to wipe Palestinian people off the map.
It's the Palestinians who want to wipe the Jews off the map.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



How confusing. I think I understand the conflict though.  It's ok for Americans to support Israel loudly and vocally even to having the flags intertwined but unpatriotic if they want to support Palestine and America.

Go figure


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > The zionist jews go ballistic when people point out the truth about Israel's racist genocide against the Palestinian people.    ..
> ...



Actually, it's just some Palestinian.  Opinion polls indicate most want a 2-state solution that includes mutual recognition.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Unfortunately, that statement is not accurate.  



> What would really contribute to this debate are more public opinion polls of Palestinians, which the media likes to cover a bit less, and are often more confusing than illuminating because of polling bias or the way questions are asked. One poll, for example, asked Palestinians if they agree with the hadith that says Muslims should kill Jews, and 73% said yes. Many Palestinians, it seems, see this as a question about religion and their response is automatic. And about two thirds of respondents in the same poll said that they saw a two state solution at best as a halfway house towards the ultimate goal of a single Palestinian state. That same poll found only 34% support the two-state solution in full.
> 
> But just as Israeli polls give different answers depending how the questions are asked, another pollster also asked Palestinians about the two state solution and found that 50% support it.



Both Israelis, Palestinians Conflicted over Two State Solution | Via Meadia


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



Puerto Ricans are not under a dictator. They are free already. Puerto Rico is an American Territory.
Cubans are under a dictator.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> I think I understand the conflict though.  It's ok for Americans to support Israel loudly and vocally even to having the flags intertwined but unpatriotic if they want to support Palestine and America.


You nailed it......


----------



## MJB12741 (Jul 10, 2013)

Well in all fairness let us consider all of the Israel supporter Jewish contributions to the USA & of course all of the Palestinian supporter Muslim conrtributions to the USA as well.  





Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...



Many US citizens join foreign military.

Where is the outrage.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...



Swing and a miss, once again.

I have no problem with an American who wants to advocate for the "Palestinian" people.  I do have a problem with an American (or anyone else for that matter) who openly supports terrorist organizations.  If you actually read the article, you would see that Mr. Oboushi has crossed this line several times.  He has also supported individuals and organizations that have published extremely anti-Semitic materials.

Are you telling me that you can't tell the difference between supporting a nation and supporting terrorists and hate groups?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

MJB12741 said:


> Well in all fairness let us consider all of the Israel supporter Jewish contributions to the USA & of course all of the Palestinian supporter Muslim conrtributions to the USA as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Then the people should not have voted for Hamas to be their leader who has said many times they want to wipe Israel off the map.
As long as the Palestinians have Hamas as their leader they will never get a 2 state solution.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Actually, I read the article and found it was mostly based on "guilt by association" and innuendo by sources with quite a bias.  In fact, it's interesting that you take it seriously given your usual aversion to those types of sources.

Perhaps you can show me direct statements from him advocating Israel's destruction.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



*The conflict is he supports a group that advocates the destruction of America and yet you call him a patriotic American. Of course you don't see a conflict.*


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Elections are largely won on local issues - Hamas was seen as less corrupt and more able to handle domestic issues.  Their foreign policy issues were not what the election was about.

If you want to know what the people think, why not ask them directly?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...



What group does he specifically support?  And, no, I have not called him a "patriotic American" - I don't have enough info and there is certainly little actual fact in the OP to draw many conclusions other than it has the credibility of Stormfront.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Indeed, Hamas won because Fatah sucks so bad.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Luissa (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Glad I'm not a Jets fan.  I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster.  I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line.  And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.



I love how the article labels him a Muslim extremist. 
And that right wing blog wouldn't have paid any attention if it was a Israeli speaking out against a Palestine.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jul 10, 2013)

Do you agree the NFL was not created & should never become an arena for politics?  Shame on that American born Palestinian & those Americans who would support him.





Coyote said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


----------



## Luissa (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Pretty much. 
Plus there is the fact a Muslim extremist wouldn't be a Pro football player in the US.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Then who is blowing up and beheading people all around the world?



Not the Palestinians.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> [Actually, I read the article and found it was mostly based on "guilt by association" and innuendo by sources with quite a bias.  In fact, it's interesting that you take it seriously given your usual aversion to those types of sources.
> 
> Perhaps you can show me direct statements from him advocating Israel's destruction.



I reject your proposed standard of proof.  I am not required to have direct quotes from his speech to evaluate his behavior.

Mr. Oboushi was a featured speaker at a conference sponsored by the "El-Bireh Palestine Society."  This is an organization that (1) clearly advocates for the elimination of Israel, (2) has ties to Hamas, (3) champions terrorists, and (4) publishes anti-Semitic materials:



> El-Bireh Palestine Societys logo, found atop the organizations website, contains a graphic of the entire nation of Israel covered in a Palestinian flag  a patent denial of Israels legitimacy and right to exist. Like Aboushis Nakba, images such as this fuel terrorism and hate abroad and potentially here at home as well. Worse still, the Facebook page for the conference  which is administered by the same individual who created the Societys website, Ashraf Abed  is accompanied by horrifically anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and terrorist propaganda.
> 
> On the same El-Bireh Facebook site as the conference, there are contained different images of Hitler and rabid anti-Christian cleric Ahmed Deedat, who authored the infamous work CRUCIFIXION OR CRUCI-FICTION? There are terrorist memorials for Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, PLO leader Yasser Arafat, Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin and Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash. About Arafat and Yassin, the site states in Arabic, The martyr leader Yasser Arafat with the Mujahid Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. G-d have mercy on them.



People can be judged by the company they keep, and Mr. Aboushi aligns himself with some pretty deplorable people.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Both of them want to wipe Israel off the map. Therein lies the dilemma for the people of Palestine.
As long as the people of Palestine have no choice other than these two parties, they will never have peace.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not the Palestinians.



I guess then that the missiles from the Gaza strip is the imagination of the Israelis


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

peach174 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



And Israel *is*, in fact, wiping Palestine off the Map.

Do you have a point?


----------



## Luissa (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Glad I'm not a Jets fan.  I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster.  I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line.  And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.



Yeah! That story is crap. 

http://elbireh.org/

A congressman was there along with a diplomat. It wasn't Muslim extremists. You should be proud of yourself.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> People can be judged by the company they keep, and Mr. Aboushi aligns himself with some pretty deplorable people.


LOL, a radical zionist jew calling someone deplorable for their political stance is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.   ..


----------



## Luissa (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > People can be judged by the company they keep, and Mr. Aboushi aligns himself with some pretty deplorable people.
> ...



A congressman and a diplomat were at the conference which was held at the Marriott. Real hard core.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

peach174 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > People can be judged by the company they keep, and Mr. Aboushi aligns himself with some pretty deplorable people.
> ...



More like the coal mine calling the kettle black.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It's the leaders of the Gaza Strip that will not stop bombing the Israelis. They are always the ones who make the peace treaty's and then continue to break it and start the bombs again.
Israel is just defending themselves.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Depends on the country he serves and some consequences, Tinmore.


Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Foreign Military Service


----------



## Luissa (Jul 10, 2013)

peach174 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I know very little about the situation, and you seem to know even less. 
Israel isn't just defending themselves.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > People can be judged by the company they keep, and Mr. Aboushi aligns himself with some pretty deplorable people.
> ...



I am not at all radical.  I am a typical American Jewish Zionist, and there are a lot more like me.

Better get used to it.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Luissa said:


> I know very little about the situation



You should have just stopped there.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Luissa (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > I know very little about the situation
> ...



Says the person who posted the racist bullshit full of lies article. You should have stopped before posting.


----------



## Luissa (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



By your standards you are a Jewish extremist. Nice sig line.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Luissa said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Really?  So Aboushi DIDN'T speak at a conference sponsored by a group that advocates for the destruction of Israel, glorifies and supports terrorists, and publishes anti-Semitic materials?

That's all a lie?

Never mind that Aboushi has confirmed that he spoke at the conference.  Its a lie, right?

Seems like the pro-"Palestinian" brigade defines the word "lie" as "a fact that I don't like."


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvlvS2a2AVE]Taqiyya - Lying For Islam - YouTube[/ame]


Islam mandates deception [taqiyya] when Muslims deal with non-Muslims. Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers if the lie is for the protection of Islam or the furthering of Islamic goals and objectives. In the cause of Islamic expansionism Muslims falsely inform non-Muslims that: Islam is a "religion of peace", the Quran mandates pluralism of religions, "jihad" is only about an "inner spiritual struggle", unprovoked violence against non-Muslims is un-Islamic, immigrant Muslims wish to fully integrate into Western countries by adopting democratic principles instead of Sharia Law, Muhammad was a man of peace, etc. None of these things are true. Taqiyya is not about truth. Taqiyya is about deception -- lulling Western people into a false sense of security, while, in reality, Islam directs Muslim immigrants to "appear integrated" while actually living as a state-within-a-state... UNTIL THEY TAKE OVER via violent jihad. Europe, be warned!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Luissa (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



I am not pro anything. Did I ever say he didn't?
No your article lied about him being an extremist and what the conference is really about. Do you think a congressman and a diplomat would attend a extremist conference? For one your article uses an example of a speaker from 1986 as an example that the group as extremist ties. 
The blog is the only link you can find the outright lies, and it is some Stormfront wanna be blog. Good job.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Islam mandates deception [taqiyya] when Muslims deal with non-Muslims. Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers if the lie is for the protection of Islam or the furthering of Islamic goals and objectives. In the cause of Islamic expansionism Muslims falsely inform non-Muslims that: Islam is a "religion of peace", the Quran mandates pluralism of religions, "jihad" is only about an "inner spiritual struggle", unprovoked violence against non-Muslims is un-Islamic, immigrant Muslims wish to fully integrate into Western countries by adopting democratic principles instead of Sharia Law, Muhammad was a man of peace, etc. None of these things are true. Taqiyya is not about truth. Taqiyya is about deception -- lulling Western people into a false sense of security, while, in reality, Islam directs Muslim immigrants to "appear integrated" while actually living as a state-within-a-state... UNTIL THEY TAKE OVER via violent jihad. Europe, be warned!


Our secret master plan for world domination seems to be working very well.  ..


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think I understand the conflict though.  It's ok for Americans to support Israel loudly and vocally even to having the flags intertwined but unpatriotic if they want to support Palestine and America.
> ...



NO.  The actual issue is that 'supporting Palestine' doesn't automatically include demonizing Zionism and calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.  

At least, that's how I see it.   I have NO PROBLEM with supporting a Palestinian State - as long as that State is not attempting to destroy Israel.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

Luissa said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


Are you serious? I can't believe that you believe what you're saying.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Luissa said:


> No your article lied about him being an extremist and what the conference is really about.



Really?  What was the conference all about, since you know so much?

When the topic of Israel came up at the conference, what was stated by the speakers?  Do you think they said "we must work towards a peaceful two-state solution"?  Are you that naive.

The web page for the conference shows kids making cardboard cut-outs of "Palestine" - depicted as including ALL of Israel - in the colors of the "Palestinian" flag.  What do you think the message is?  That the conflict should be resolved through diplomacy resulting in two sovereign states, or that ALL OF ISRAEL IS "PALESTINE"?

Are you really than naive and clueless?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Islam mandates deception [taqiyya] when Muslims deal with non-Muslims. Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers if the lie is for the protection of Islam or the furthering of Islamic goals and objectives. In the cause of Islamic expansionism Muslims falsely inform non-Muslims that: Islam is a "religion of peace", the Quran mandates pluralism of religions, "jihad" is only about an "inner spiritual struggle", unprovoked violence against non-Muslims is un-Islamic, immigrant Muslims wish to fully integrate into Western countries by adopting democratic principles instead of Sharia Law, Muhammad was a man of peace, etc. None of these things are true. Taqiyya is not about truth. Taqiyya is about deception -- lulling Western people into a false sense of security, while, in reality, Islam directs Muslim immigrants to "appear integrated" while actually living as a state-within-a-state... UNTIL THEY TAKE OVER via violent jihad. Europe, be warned!
> ...


Righto! Europe is slowly awakening from a coma and it won't be long until they're rootin' 'em out and movin' 'em out.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> I am not at all radical.  I am a typical American Jewish Zionist, and there are a lot more like me.
> 
> Better get used to it.


History has shown many times.

That once the Jews get comfortable and full of themselves.

A pogrom is right around the corner.

True story........


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not at all radical.  I am a typical American Jewish Zionist, and there are a lot more like me.
> ...



Bring it on.







Just don't cry "do over" again after you lose.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > [Actually, I read the article and found it was mostly based on "guilt by association" and innuendo by sources with quite a bias.  In fact, it's interesting that you take it seriously given your usual aversion to those types of sources.
> ...



Now that is too funny....you make a point of "requiring" facts such as stats etc etc rather than relying on "biased" sources from your opponents but place quite a different standard when it comes to your side.

No direct quote required...your answer tells me all I need to know.




> Mr. Oboushi was a featured speaker at a conference sponsored by the "El-Bireh Palestine Society."  This is an organization that (1) clearly advocates for the elimination of Israel, (2) has ties to Hamas, (3) champions terrorists, and (4) publishes anti-Semitic materials:



Now, the OP is really big on accusations (by association) but short on links to it's claims, but..."El-Bireh"....a quick google doesn't pull up that is controversial at all much less extreme for this small group.

Lets look their events: Events & Activities - Everything Listed & Registration Is Included In Your Ticket Price! | El Bireh Convention:

I'm disappointed - where is Jihadi 101?  Where is How to turn a flotation device into a homemade bomb?  Where is "dunk the Jew"?  Where is the risque Miss Burkha contest?  Where are the calls for America's destruction.




> El-Bireh Palestine Society&#8217;s logo, found atop the organization&#8217;s website, contains a graphic of the entire nation of Israel covered in a Palestinian flag &#8211; a patent denial of Israel&#8217;s legitimacy and right to exist.



So what?  If they feel it's a one-state issue, it's their right.  Doesn't mean they are activly supporting violence. There are certainly many Israeli's who feel that the entire biblical region belongs to Israel.



> Like Aboushi&#8217;s Nakba, images such as this fuel terrorism and hate abroad and potentially here at home as well.



Oh please - the imagery presented is incredibly benign expression of their beliefs and by no means enough to convict a young man in the court of public opinion and deprive him of a hard earned career.  



> Worse still, the Facebook page for the conference &#8211; which is administered by the same individual who created the Society&#8217;s website, Ashraf Abed &#8211; is accompanied *by horrifically anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and terrorist propaganda*.



What specifically?  Here is their conference facebook site: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.566977416667785.1073741830.139165199449011&type=3

Another site here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Al-Bireh-Youth-Society-USA/113894108636700

???



> On the same El-Bireh Facebook site as the conference, there are contained different images of Hitler and rabid anti-Christian cleric Ahmed Deedat, who authored the infamous work CRUCIFIXION OR CRUCI-FICTION?



Do you have a link?  I'm not finding it.




> There are terrorist memorials for Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, PLO leader Yasser Arafat, Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin and Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash. About Arafat and Yassin, the site states in Arabic, &#8220;The martyr leader Yasser Arafat with the Mujahid Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. G-d have mercy on them.&#8221;



So what?  Israel memorialized it's terrorists and cleaned them up into MP's and PM's.  Why the big deal when Palestinians do it?  Double standards in that regard get old.



> People can be judged by the company they keep, and Mr. Aboushi aligns himself with some pretty deplorable people.



Again, please provide some statements or something from him indicating his beliefs - otherwise it's a disgusting bit of trashing.


----------



## Ropey (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not at all radical.  I am a typical American Jewish Zionist, and there are a lot more like me.
> ...





> A pogrom is a violent massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews



Pogrom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes Sunni. You think you can just say anything here. Certainly some that support the other side don't seem to mind what you say at all. It figures. Moderation is gutsy. When done right. 

Meh


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Righto! Europe is slowly awakening from a coma and it won't be long until they're rootin' 'em out and movin' 'em out.


Naw, the muslim birth rate will soon over take the immigration rate.

And no country is going to expel their natural born citizens.  ..


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

Luissa said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I know more about than you do.
Hamas as part of its basic charter is dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel. No peace, no negotiation short of Israel's total destruction. How else can Israel deal with that except (1) to accept the bombing or (2) take military action of their own?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote, I'm not going to waste my time with your "logic."

If you don't think that the "Palestine from river to sea" movement is necessarily one that advocates the elimination of Israel through violence, you are either tragically naive or deliberately obtuse.

I go back and forth on what your motivation is.  Part of the time, I think you're just another typical anti-Israel bigot.  Other times, I think you are just trying waaaaaay too hard to steer conversations toward the middle, at the expense of any shred of credibility.

I've spent some time analyzing these two possiblities, and reached an inescapable conclusion:

Who cares?

I'll say this for Aboushi, though.  He's like any other NFL rookie - he's a kid.  As a kid, he's bound to do stupid things.  Another NFL kid, Tim Tebow, was scheduled to speak at a controversial church earlier this year.  Becuase of his popularity, the media covered that story (while they have largely ignored the Aboushi story).  Under that pressure, Tebow reconsidered and cancelled the talk.  

If Aboushi learns, as he matures, that its not merely WHAT you support, but how you express your support, perhaps he could become a positive voice in these debates.

Right now, though, he is making foolish choices for a semi-public figure.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Righto! Europe is slowly awakening from a coma and it won't be long until they're rootin' 'em out and movin' 'em out.
> ...


I'm a betting man and I'm giving odds. Won't be long until I can afford a tune-up on my Bugatti. How much you in for?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


I am not advocating a pogrom on the jews.

Just saying that historically it has been a cyclical event.   ..


----------



## Ropey (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



You are attaching those genocides as if it is the Jews at fault and that it comes again. 

That's the same thing as advocating it.

Even if some here pretend it isn't.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...





This is what I base it on - and, it actually has a lot of interesting things to say about how Palestinians feel concerning that and their own political situation use of violence, aspirations and fears - particularly between the WB and Gaza.  It also shows 53% (combined) support it,  58.5% WB only, and 45% Gaza only - for the 2 state solution.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

MJB12741 said:


> Do you agree the NFL was not created & should never become an arena for politics?  Shame on that American born Palestinian & those Americans who would support him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What are you talking about?  Are you saying football players aren't allowed to have political points of view?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

So you're ignoring the part where 73% agree that Muslims should kill Jews, and the mere 34% that supported the two-state solution "in full," as opposed to as a stepping stone toward eliminating Israel entirely?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

peach174 said:


> I guess then that the missiles from the Gaza strip is the imagination of the Israelis



That wasn't what you claimed:  _*Then who is blowing up and beheading people all around the world?*_


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Ropey said:


> You are attaching those genocides as if it is the Jews at fault and that it comes again.
> 
> That's the same thing as advocating it.
> 
> Even if some here pretend it isn't.


The jews throughout history have been expelled from dozens of countries.

They start out as well mannered guests. 

But as time goes by, they eventually become a menace and raise the ire of the indigenous people.

They are then forcefully driven out and flee to another country.

Where the process begins again.   ..


----------



## Ropey (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > You are attaching those genocides as if it is the Jews at fault and that it comes again.
> ...




Let me be clear. Sunni puts forward that  the Jews have been victims of genocide throughout the years and attaches that this then must be their fault, just like a woman who is raped is looking for it if she dresses like it.

It's a sick method and is clearly an extremist proposal.

So, you're talking about the Jews being killed worldwide in the past and then you're *saying that it's coming again*.

Yeah, your side just bypasses that stuff.

They don't want to deal with it.  Why? They  have no guts.

I took on the extremist JStone, Marc39 and they can't even take on you.  

Meh


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's wonderful the Jets have him to show all Americans on our own soil first hand what Palestinian mentality is all about that the USA & Israel have to deal with.
> ...



Umh...where, exactly, is there any indication that Al Queda are "his heros"


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> That wasn't what you claimed:  _*Then who is blowing up and beheading people all around the world?*_



It's taken out of context Coyote.
We were talking about Tinmore saying that terrorists was only propaganda.


----------



## Ropey (Jul 10, 2013)

Some are just lost to the side of one side.   

meh


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...


I am not advocating anything.

But yes, I do feel that the jews bring it upon themselves.

Just making an observation based on repeated history.  ..


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



I think you are here to stir things up and make people on here angry while you are sniggering.  Am I correct?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Then who is blowing up and beheading people all around the world?
> 
> I stated it very clearly coyote



What?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> I think you are here to stir things up and make people on here angry while you are sniggering.  Am I correct?


Nope


----------



## Ropey (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Just like the person who says the rapist didn't rape the raped victim because the raped victim was asking for it.

You miss that part.  I doubt the women in here do since they're women and might more easily get the comparison that you pretend not to get.




Sweet_Caroline said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



He's poking the Jews with extremism and his side likes it.



I don't like either side doing that.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> So you're ignoring the part where 73% agree that Muslims should kill Jews, and the mere 34% that supported the two-state solution "in full," as opposed to as a stepping stone toward eliminating Israel entirely?



I'm not ignoring it - but unlike the example I gave, I can not find the actual poll questions and responses - the link only gives this link 6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution, survey finds | JPost | Israel News  which further confirms the confusing and contradictory nature of the Palestinian polls. (I'm unable to get the Haaretz article in entirety since I'm not a subscriber).

I prefer polls where you can see the actual wording of questions and answers rather than summaries.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> He's lucky he was not drafted by the Patriots, Vikings, Eagles, Falcons, Dolphins, Giants, Browns, Buccaneers or Redskins, all of whom have a Jewish owner, or the Bears, who have a Jewish Head Coach.



don't you think it reinforces anti-semitic stereotypes to imply that jewish american employers would impose some penalty or another against an employee for legitimately exercising a constitutional right in an entirely appropriate manner? it takes on an even uglier tone when the employee is a muslim and a gentile who, as an added bonus, attended catholic schools.

i suppose an appropriate response to such a thoroughly bigoted remark would be "yes, he is indeed lucky not to be working for a jew."

the man is an american of palestinian descent, not a slave.

evelyn hall once wrote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" .

and...

oliver wndell holmes said "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

perhaps it would be wise for you to take a brief break and try to discern the difference between criticising what a person has to say as opposed to criticising him for the act of saying it.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> don't you think it reinforces anti-semitic stereotypes to imply that jewish american employers would impose some penalty or another against an employee for legitimately exercising a constitutional right in an entirely appropriate manner? it takes on an even uglier tone when the employee is a muslim and a gentile who, as an added bonus, attended catholic schools.



Once again, you don't understand the Constitution.  NFL teams are private companies.  They are free to impose penalties on those who make statements that the team deems to be a poor reflection on the organization.  So, if an owner, Jewish or otherwise, decided to cut a player because he advocated the destruction of Israel, they could do so without violating the Constitution.


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 10, 2013)

I see I need to repeat myself:  It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.

It is absolutely inexcusable for an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - to be participating in activities of a group calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

I think there is a huge difference:  the man is being criticized for the latter activity, not the former.  They are two very separate ideas - aren't they?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> I see I need to repeat myself:  It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.
> 
> It is absolutely inexcusable for an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - to be participating in activities of a group calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
> 
> I think there is a huge difference:  the man is being criticized for the latter activity, not the former.  They are two very separate ideas - aren't they?



Of course they are.  That won't stop certain people around here from trying to equate the two, though.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

*Thread has been reopened with off topic and trolling posts removed.  If you wish to pursue tangents - please feel free to start a fresh thread rather than derail this one.  Otherwise, let's discuss the topic at hand. 
*


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote, I'm not going to waste my time with your "logic."
> 
> If you don't think that the "Palestine from river to sea" movement is necessarily one that advocates the elimination of Israel through violence, you are either tragically naive or deliberately obtuse.
> 
> ...



I agree with that part - however, the smear tactics in the OP, and the lack of any real evidence for their claims that he is a "radical muslim" are disgusting and largely false.  To take it seriously - to support it - is to give it a credability it doesn't deserve.  Would you give Stormfront credibility?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> You made it look like I posted that.  I didn't.



I believe the mixed up quotes have all been fixed now - if you note any others, please report them


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote, I'm not going to waste my time with your "logic."
> ...



There are no "smear tactics" in the article.  The article presents *FACTS* regarding: (1) Oboushi's participation in the conference, and (2) the nature of the organization that sponsored the conference.  It then draws conclusions from those facts.  Just because you don't agree with those conclusions or believe them to be overreaching does not mean the article must be discarded.  Rather, you are free to draw your own conclusions based upon the facts (which nobody is contensting) that are set forth in the article.

I don't read Stormfront, so I have no comment on that site.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "he&#8217;s a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a "radical Muslim conference" then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".

Perhaps you might consider your words here:  _"Rather, you are free to draw your own conclusions based upon the facts (which nobody is contensting) that are set forth in the article"_ in light of other conversations where you summarily dismissed sources and "facts" without "contesting them".

I find this OP makes many allegations and provides next to no supporting material and contested what they've claimed about him being a "Muslim extremist".

Perhaps you can offer up some first hand evidence of this "Muslim extremism" in this young man - some quotes, behavior etc to support that.  The kind of evidence you, yourself, would demand were this a criticism levied at Israel.

FYI - You don't need to read Stormfront to know what it is.


----------



## Ropey (Jul 10, 2013)

> The kind of evidence you, yourself, would demand were this a criticism levied at Israel



^ And this comes from a person who doesn't see what Sunni just did as an extremist trolling?


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741 said:
> ...



*Point taken. I reread the article and it only states that he spoke at the conference. It doesn't have any quotes. I guess I was making the same assumptions I would make if someone said that you spoke at a Klan rally.*


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodrock44 said:
> ...



How is this group comparable to the Klan?


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > don't you think it reinforces anti-semitic stereotypes to imply that jewish american employers would impose some penalty or another against an employee for legitimately exercising a constitutional right in an entirely appropriate manner? it takes on an even uglier tone when the employee is a muslim and a gentile who, as an added bonus, attended catholic schools.
> ...



i understand the constitution well enough to know that the foremost legal scholars and the supreme court often disagree on its interpretation. my understanding of the constitution far exceeds your ability to comprehend what you read.

now go back and read what i said.

you may also point out exactly where oday aboushi advocated the destruction of israel, not that had he done so, firing him for such an action would, in all probability, certainly violate his constitutional rights. you really do have to move away from this "master-slave" relationship you think occurs in the workplace, at least in a "de juris" sense.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "hes a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a "radical Muslim conference" then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".



I guess so.



> Perhaps you might consider your words here:  _"Rather, you are free to draw your own conclusions based upon the facts (which nobody is contensting) that are set forth in the article"_ in light of other conversations where you summarily dismissed sources and "facts" without "contesting them".



Only I have not done so.  What I have done is reject the idea that one person's accusation is to be deemed a "fact."  Here, there is no dispute.  He did speak at the conference, the conference is sponsored by an organization that advocates a "Palestine from river to sea" concept, the organization has connections to terrorist organizations, and it has published anti-Semitic materials.  These are all facts that are not contested by anyone.  If Aboushi claimed that he was not at the conference, then I'd have to consider the source that is saying he was there.  But that's not the case. 



> I find this OP makes many allegations and provides next to no supporting material and contested what they've claimed about him being a "Muslim extremist".



I don't really like the term "Muslim extremist" either, but I do think he is "Palestinian extremist" in that he takes his support of "Palestine" to an extreme level that questions Israel's right to exist.



> Perhaps you can offer up some first hand evidence of this "Muslim extremism" in this young man - some quotes, behavior etc to support that.  The kind of evidence you, yourself, would demand were this a criticism levied at Israel.



In my book, anyone who would agree to speak at such a conference is guilty of extremist behavior.



> FYI - You don't need to read Stormfront to know what it is.



Actually, before joining this forum, I had never heard of Stormfront.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



*You missed my point. I'm not comparing it or him to the Klan. As I said I made assumptions without researching. I found nothing else negative about him other than this article. I found nothing negative about the convention. If someone said "Coyote spoke at a Klan rally some would assume that you supported the Klan when in actuality you may have spoken and told them they're full of crap. *


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



Sorry, but you are simply wrong.  A private employer is not subject to a lawsuit under the free speech provision of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  There are no legal scholars or judges who believe that a private employer can be sued under this provision.    

Your understanding of the Constitution is nonexistent.  Mine, on the other hand, is based upon a resume that humility prevents me from publishing here.  Suffice to say, I know what I'm talking about.

But, hey... don't take my word for it.  Go and actually read the First Amendment and see who it is directed to (I'll give you a hint: "______ shall make no law...")


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> I see I need to repeat myself:  It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.
> 
> It is absolutely inexcusable for an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - to be participating in activities of a group calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
> 
> I think there is a huge difference:  the man is being criticized for the latter activity, not the former.  They are two very separate ideas - aren't they?



because the ideas are seperate does not mean either one is wrong or unconstitutional.

i hear zionists call for the destruction of states all the time, the latest being syria...and then we have the old standby, iran.

also, i am really not seeing anybody calling for the destruction of israel. he mentioned the nakba. the nakba happened.

front page is a conservative, jewish and zionist propaganda paper run by david horowitz. why in the world should i believe what they imply.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > I see I need to repeat myself:  It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.
> ...



Were you under the impression that anyone here is trying to convince YOU of anything?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "hes a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a "radical Muslim conference" then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".
> ...



I think, honestly - you could have chosen a better source to make your point with.  The only fact that is accurate is he spoke at the conference - even the accusation that the group itself is extremist is hardly well supported.  The intent of the article is clearly defammatory - in fact, did any of them make an attempt to find talk to him?  Find out what his views were?  What he talked about?  No.  They wrote up an article full of innuendo and guilt by association.  I find that disgusting regardless of who it's directed against.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...


A private employer can fire workers without giving a reason. I've seen people fired for no reason at all.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> I think, honestly - you could have chosen a better source to make your point with.  The only fact that is accurate is he spoke at the conference - even the accusation that the group itself is extremist is hardly well supported.  The intent of the article is clearly defammatory - in fact, did any of them make an attempt to find talk to him?  Find out what his views were?  What he talked about?  No.  They wrote up an article full of innuendo and guilt by association.  I find that disgusting regardless of who it's directed against.



Sigh. 

I feel like I'm teaching a legal seminar today.

For a statement to be defamatory, it must be false.

As you are claiming the article is defamatory, what evidence do you have that it is false?  The article cites sources regarding the organizations' publications.  Do you have evidence that these sources are incorrect? 

Seems that you are the one making a presumption of falsity based upon the source of the article.

Stated another way - because the article is *associated* with a publication you don't like, your are presuming its *guilty* of defamation.  

Guilt by association.

Ironic, no?


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



actually, what is nonexistent is your ability to read fairly simple and direct statements without allowing your emotions on the subject or issue dictate your comprehension.

i, on the other hand, freely admit that i am in no position to argue with unfounded opinions on your part and the "illusive resume" that you bring into play when cornered.

kudos, though, on the excellent display of your humility...lol....well, except for the "suffice to say, i know what i am talking about" part. try harder. ya ain't no oscar wilde.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



yes, but there is a difference between firing a person for no reason and firing a person for the wrong reason.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think, honestly - you could have chosen a better source to make your point with.  The only fact that is accurate is he spoke at the conference - even the accusation that the group itself is extremist is hardly well supported.  The intent of the article is clearly defammatory - in fact, did any of them make an attempt to find talk to him?  Find out what his views were?  What he talked about?  No.  They wrote up an article full of innuendo and guilt by association.  I find that disgusting regardless of who it's directed against.
> ...



Is he a Muslim extremist?

Most of the claims the article makes are not supported by links and the few links it has are of facebook pages that can't be verified.



> Seems that you are the one making a presumption of falsity based upon the source of the article.



You yourself have taken that tact with sources - why the sudden shift here?

Certain sources use red-flag language, a conspiracy theory methodology that depends heavily on innuendo and guilt by association and when I see that, I discount it.  




> Stated another way - because the article is *associated* with a publication you don't like, your are presuming its *guilty* of defamation.
> 
> Guilt by association.
> 
> Ironic, no?



There's a difference between being "associated with" and actively promoting it with a front page link.
As I pointed out, that is not the only reason I take issue with it


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



lolol...well, there sure is a lotta histrionic babblin' that seems to be trying to convince somebody of something. perhaps you are just angry because i, among others, don't let you run your and david horowitz's rhetoric and propaganda unanswered.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


Wrong reason? I've seen people get fired because the person doing the firing didn't like the color of their mustasche or the part of their hair. Makes no difference one way or the other.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Is he a Muslim extremist?



That's a matter of opinion.  Pure opinions are not actionable under the tort of defamation.



> You yourself have taken that tact with sources - why the sudden shift here?



No shift at all.  

If a source presents an undisputed fact, the source is irrelevant, as credibility is not at issue.
If a source presents a disputed accusation as a fact, the source is relevant, as credibility is at issue.

In this case, the key facts are not in dispute.



> There's a difference between being "associated with" and actively promoting it with a front page link.
> As I pointed out, that is not the only reason I take issue with it



I'm not promoting the source.  I merely re-published the article and raised an issue.

Everyone here is free to form their own opinions.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Is he a Muslim extremist?
> ...



This isn't a court.....just saying 




> > You yourself have taken that tact with sources - why the sudden shift here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The conclusions drawn by the article ARE in dispute.



> There's a difference between being "associated with" and actively promoting it with a front page link.
> As I pointed out, that is not the only reason I take issue with it



I'm not promoting the source.  I merely re-published the article and raised an issue.

Everyone here is free to form their own opinions.[/QUOTE]

My mistake - I didn't mean you were promoting it - I was misunderstanding.  I meant Frontpage was promoting Jihadwatch.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



well, it doesn't surprise me to see you have no problem with people being fired because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, handicap, mustache colour, and hair part. i myself have spent almost my entire life fighting agaisnst such discrimination but carry on...and good luck, troop.

you know what though. when i took that oath to protect and defend the constitution, i was serious. was there somfin in the c-rats they gave to you air-mobile cav fooks that makes you cut and run when the heats on or when god bangs his book in your direction.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

The facts are the facts:

1.  Aboushi spoke at the seminar.
2.  The organization that put on the seminar has a logo that strongly suggests that it believes that all of Israel should be "Palestine."
3.  The organization that put on the seminar has published materials that most would deem to be anti-Semitic.
4.  The organization has financial ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
5.  The organization honors terrorists in its publications.

From those facts, we are all free to draw whatever conclusion we wish.

Its funny... in 150+ posts on this thread, nobody has asked me what I would do if I owned the Jets.

Here's my answer: I would sit down with Mr. Aboushi and advise him that, as a member of the Jets franchise, his actions reflect on the team.  I would state further that players are discouraged from associating with groups that take extreme positions on highly-charged political issues.  I would explain that, first and foremost, this is an economic issue for the team.  Players should avoid actions that might alienate the fan base or sponsors.  If Mr. Aboushi elected to continue associated with organizations like the one that put on the conference, I would consider cutting him from the team.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



lol...angry...no way...it isn't every day i am afforded the opportunity to reducing such an astute constitutional scholar into making pee wee herman type arguments...oh, pardon me. in deference to your legal pretensions, perhaps i should have said "redcuctio ad absurdum".


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



Pee Wee Herman is way out of your league.  

I noticed that you've backed off your arguments about Constitutional violations.  I suspect that this means you've Googled enough to realize that you were dead wrong.  Shame you're not man enough to admit it.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> The facts are the facts:
> 
> 1.  Aboushi spoke at the seminar.
> 2.  The organization that put on the seminar has a logo that strongly suggests that it believes that all of Israel should be "Palestine."
> ...



here is a real fact...

because someone says something is a fact does not make it a fact. other than #1, the others are arguable.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



i have backed off on nothing and have no need to google on the matter. i could take a different tack and say that unless it is specifically stated in oday's contract that he must forsake his constitutional right, it is still in effect, but it would be up to you to prove that was a condirtion of his contract.

i am not the one putting forth the pee wee herman arguments. you are way in his league, i imagine. ride 'em. cowgirl...lol.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > The facts are the facts:
> ...



Here's a photo of the art projects the kids at the conference were doing.  What do you think that's a map of?  Is that a two-state solution map?


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



i think it is a photo offered by palestinian media watch which makes it suspect.

saying something or anything "strongly suggests" is never a fact, it is an opinion. it may be an accurate opinion but it is nonetheless an opinion...and opinions aren't facts. you have claimed it as a fact.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Glad I'm not a Jets fan.  I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster.  I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line.  And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.



you got a better source?  FrontPage? FRONTPAGE?!!!


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



*Whew...you really had me worried. You know I couldn't bare it if you were angry. And you know I would never lie about you. You were just kidding right? How could I lie about my BFF...that's best friend forever in case you're not keeping up with kid speak. *


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Righto! Europe is slowly awakening from a coma and it won't be long until they're rootin' 'em out and movin' 'em out.
> ...



Would you like a list of those nations which have, in the 20th Century?


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



Check the logo on the conference page:  it's the same, so it's NOT something 'invented' by PMW.  It's a fact that the logo is offensive to Israelis.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> ...



what country is that?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



Seal will never accept the truth.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 10, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> ...



ok, so, what do you object to in the article? 


I have one;  they didn't say that there was in fact families in Jerusalem moved from their homes and their things were put in the street as they refused eviction orders, they should have said that when they were describing one of the pics he out up. 


your turn...........


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



you people really do have to learn how to read.

first of all she went all leagal eagle on me.

then she presents what she claims as facts.

i am not, not have i disputed  the logo. what i dispute is that the opinion that the logo "strongly suggests" the destruction of israel is a fact. that is an opinion even, as i have said, it may be an accurate opinion. it may also be an inaccuraate opinion.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

Who's "she"?


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > I see I need to repeat myself:  It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.
> ...


.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Who's "she"?



if you are not a "she" i apologise. i have seen you referred to as both. it was not meant as an insult at all.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Who's "she"?
> ...



No offense taken.

Though, this does provide a nice example of what happens when you make assumptions.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



i am not nor have i ever disputed the logo. nor do i dispute that it is "offensive to (insert a qualifying word here that you have become so fond raggin' on me about for not doing, marg) israelis."

now, it may be a fact that the el-bireh logo strongly suggests to you or a select group that el-bireh advocates the destruction of israel but to make a blank statement that it is a fact is false. it is your opinion.

you, with your illustrious resume, that remains illusive due to your humility, should be aware of the difference between a fact and an opinion.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



Is this your not exactly subtle way of trying to get me to reveal personal details about myself?  If so, don't bother.  I know better than to do so on a message board.  Not that there are crazy whackadoodles here or who might take things too far or anything... 

Or maybe there are.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



most of us make assumptions. i do so rarely. i did in this case but, as i said, i saw you referred to as she. you still haven't told me your gender.

perhaps, in the future, you might want to correct people who make that assumption if it bothers you. it doesn't bother me one way or another what people think i am...genderwise.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



well, that is a leap. i don't care one single damn about your personal details. you were the one who brought up your legal expertise in an attempt to proclaim what you perceived to be my complete ignorance on a matter. 

i was not attempting to glean any personal information at all. i was merely mocking your arrogance and conceit and your lack of reason and logic.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 10, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Righto! Europe is slowly awakening from a coma and it won't be long until they're rootin' 'em out and movin' 'em out.
> ...


Ants and cockroaches reproduce at a higher rate, doesn't make them dominant.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > I see I need to repeat myself:  It is absolutely wrong to criticize an American of Palestinian descent - or anyone else for that matter! - for supporting the Palestinan people or the establishment of a Palestinian state.
> ...


Stop lying.  Zionists have never called for the destruction of Iran or Syria.  If anything, they call for the people of Iran to be freed from these tyrannical Islamist animals.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


That last statement of yours is totaly false and gives me a different opinion about your character, Redleg..


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





> If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "hes a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a *"radical Muslim conference"* then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".



Who decided that this was a radical Muslim conference? Was that how it was advertised?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > If you think it present's "facts" that support their claim he's "hes a Muslim extremist" giving a talk at a "radical Muslim conference" then we are worlds apart on what constitute "facts".
> ...





> I don't really like the term "Muslim extremist" either, but I do think he is "Palestinian extremist" in that he takes his support of "Palestine" to an extreme level that questions Israel's right to exist.



Why do you consider that extreme? It is a legitimate question under the circumstances.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jul 10, 2013)

And we don't let YOU run your Jew hatred unanswered.  





reabhloideach said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



It is the same slime that kind dumps on anyone who does not suck up to Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



The map is geographically correct. Why do you have a problem with an accurate map?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


I wonder if Seal can tell us which Muslim countries actually show Israel on their maps.  If anyone should know, it would be Seal since he is so well informed..


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



Why do you have a problem with the truth?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



No, its not.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


In the US of A, Hamas is considered a TERRORIST organization.  You live in the USA and respect its laws don't you?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Hamas wasn't giving the conference.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The U.S. State Department classifies ISLAMIC RELIEF as a front for Hamas. IR hosted the conference.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



It was in the fine print wedged in between the Miss Burkha 2013 contest and the Jihadist break out groups - you have to read between the lines and then fill in all the missing facts with your imagination.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Is that a law or just third grade political name calling?

And besides, this was not a Hamas event.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Hamas wasn't giving the conference.

The conference that he spoke at was not even hosted by Islamic Relief - it was hosted by El-Bireh.

The *only reference to Islamic Relief *was that he praised a fundraiser they did for Palestinian kids in a brief tweet: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cy8f70fbsakwu1m/Oday_Aboushi_Islamic-Relief.jpg

Reading it - I have to ask - what is the big deal?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Check out Post #185,then read this article,Harold.















Year Formed:  1993 

Website: Islamic Relief USA - Working Together For A Better World 

2010 Revenue:  $182,595,129 

Address: 3655 Wheeler Ave, Alexandria, VA 22304

Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA) says it strives to alleviate suffering, hunger, illiteracy, and diseases worldwide regardless of color, race, religion, or creed, and to provide aid in a compassionate and dignified manner. Islamic Relief USA aims to provide rapid relief in the event of human and natural disasters and to establish sustainable local development projects allowing communities to better help themselves.[1]

IRUSA is the American branch of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), based in the United Kingdom.



The IRW leadership has numerous Muslim Brotherhood  links, including one official that used to be the Minister of Religious Affairs in Sudan.[2] IRW was founded by Hani Al-Bana, a former trustee of a group called Muslim Aid.[3] The British government cleared Muslim Aid in 2010,[4] raising objections[5] from some terrorism researchers.[6]


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



Why is it not a legitimate question?

What evidence do you actually have that he takes his support to an extreme level?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Link: Islamic Relief USA | #1 News Site on the Threat of Radical Islam
formerly RadicalIslam.org


More info:  Charity Navigator Rating - Islamic Relief USA

Sounds like they are a good charity.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


This is the site I quoted but lost the link and found it again. This Islamic Relief has some good intentions but some shady people.


Islamic Relief USA | #1 News Site on the Threat of Radical Islam


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



I was looking at the Clarion Project web site and that looks like a pretty shady outfit also.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Very perceptive, Paulie. Yes it's a truthful, honest, All-American website that spills the beans on the Islamic terrorists. How about that?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 10, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



I saw a lot of name calling, innuendo, and guilt be association. They looked less than honest.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


True. They're a devious bunch of sonsabitches but they speak the truth and  their hearts are pure.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Six of this and a dozen of the other.  Same terrorist shits, different name.  Maybe you should read the OP article again then:

His latest infraction was made as he gave a speech at a radical Muslim conference sponsored by* a group denying Israel&#8217;s right to exist and associated with blatantly anti-Semitic and terrorist propaganda.*

Aboushi&#8217;s problem is an unusual one for pro sports. *He&#8217;s a Muslim extremist.*

Aboushi praised a conference sponsored by Islamic Relief (IR), a charity that the Israeli government has labeled *a front for Hamas and that has been cited for both receiving and giving huge sums of money to al-Qaeda related groups.*

El-Bireh Palestine Society&#8217;s logo, found atop the organization&#8217;s website, contains a graphic of the entire nation of Israel covered in a Palestinian flag &#8211; a patent denial of Israel&#8217;s legitimacy and right to exist. Worse still, the Facebook page for the conference &#8211; which is administered by the same individual who created the Society&#8217;s website, Ashraf Abed &#8211; is accompanied by horrifically anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and terrorist propaganda.

On the same El-Bireh Facebook site as the conference,* there are contained different images of Hitler and rabid anti-Christian cleric Ahmed Deedat, who authored the infamous work CRUCIFIXION OR CRUCI-FICTION? **There are terrorist memorials for Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi*, PLO leader Yasser Arafat, *Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin and Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash. *About Arafat and Yassin, the site states in Arabic, &#8220;The martyr leader Yasser Arafat with the Mujahid Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. G-d have mercy on them.&#8221;


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 11, 2013)

Its downright comical how hard some peoplevare working to pretend that this conference was innocuous.  Never mind the evidence... just deny, deny, deny.

I have no interest in conversing with people who deliberately ignore facts.

And I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


If you think it's third grade name calling, try providing any kind of financial or material support for Hamas and see how many years that will land you in the Federal penitentiary.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Its downright comical how hard some peoplevare working to pretend that this conference was innocuous.  Never mind the evidence... just deny, deny, deny.
> 
> I have no interest in conversing with people who deliberately ignore facts.
> 
> And I'm done with this thread.


The constant requirement for people who support the kind of behavior exhibited by this Aboushi asshole character, is being in a continual state of denial. 

That's basically the only way it all works out.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore, Roudy, _et al,_

Think about this carefully.



P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(OBSERVATION)*

Many pro-Palestinians use the theory under The Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism that the cause or end justifies the means _(Machiavelli)_:



			
				The Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism said:
			
		

> Preamble said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

It is very craftily worded.  But essential, as long as the Arab/Palestinian see themselves as if in a war of liberation (foreign occupation and aggression), they don't consider themselves as pursuing a "criminal agenda."  Therefore, none of the following events, as far as they are concerned, establish a past pattern of criminal behavior:


United States Senator Bobby Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, a Arab-Palestinian. 5 June 68 in Los Angeles.

Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorists open fire on a busload of pilgrims killing Barbara Ertle of Michigan.  23 February, 1970, Halhoul, West Bank.

Olympic Games, Black September _(a front for Fatah)_, 9 killed, including David Berger, from Cleveland, Ohio.  5 September, 1972, Munich.

Fatah claimed responsibility for the bombing, which killed six people and wounded 38.  14 November, 1975, Jerusalem.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) attacks on the Air Port terminal airline counter area of El Al Airlines. Four people killed, including Harold Rosenthal of Philadelphia.  11 August, 1976, Istanbul.

Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, was among 38 people shot to death by Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorists on an Israeli beach.  11 March, 1978, Tel Aviv.

Eli Haze'ev, from Alexandria, Virginia, was killed in a Palestinian Liberation Organization opened fire on Jewish worshippers walking home from a synagogue.  2 May, 1980, Hebron, West Bank.

Two American citizens, Anne Van Zanten and Grace Cutler, were killed when the Palestinian Liberation Organization bombed a Jewish restaurant in Paris.   19 August, 1982, Paris.

Palestine Islamic Jihad detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the American Embassy Annex, killing two servicemen. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers.   20 September, 1984, Aukar, Lebanon.

A Fatah bomb exploded on a TWA flight from Rome as it approached Athens airport. The attack killed four U.S. citizens who were sucked through a hole made by the blast, although the plane safely landed.   30 March, 1986, Athens.

Nachshon Wachsman, 19, from New York, was kidnapped and then murdered by Hamas.
9 October, 1994  Gaza.

Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing which   injured included Julie K. Negrin of Seattle, WA.   4 March, 1996, Tel Aviv.

Dov Driben, a 28-year-old American, was killed by Fatah terrorists near the West Bank town of Maon.  19 April, 1998, Maon, Israel.

A Hamas suicide bombing at Sbarro's, killed Americans Judith L. Greenbaum, 31, of New Jersey, and Malka Roth, 15, from New York.   9 August, 2001, Jerusalem, Israel.

Who can forget the October 7, 1985, when the very brave Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) team hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. The PFLP murdered a disabled American in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, by throwing him in the ocean.  This example, and the sample list above, are what the pro-Palestinians call:  "by whatever means."  Most of the rest of the world knows it better as "terrorism."

You cannot talk intelligently or rationally to the pro-Palestinian community on such matters as terrorism.  They have themselves painted as the victim.  They see all these actions as some type of martyrdom or heroic action.

*(REMEMBERING)*  What is obvious to you and me is not to the Palestinian.



			
				 CONDEMNS PALESTINIAN TERROR ATTACK ON ISRAELI CIVILIANS said:
			
		

> Following are UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moons remarks to the Security Council open debate on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Jul 11, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



I think the important bit is that British government cleared Muslim Aid in 2010 of any terrorist affiliations ...


----------



## Coyote (Jul 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Its downright comical how hard some peoplevare working to pretend that this conference was innocuous.  Never mind the evidence... just deny, deny, deny.
> 
> I have no interest in conversing with people who deliberately ignore facts.
> 
> And I'm done with this thread.



The problem is - you aren't supplying facts, you're making them up and then flouncing away from the debate spouting insults.  Facts and sources that would earn your scorn (or your insistance on proof) in one debate are suddenly acceptable in another.  Make up your mind.

You have yet to substantiate your claims against this conference beyond what the article claims and there are no links to any primary sources.

How about we deconstruct the OP?

Let's look at the title: *NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference*

The beginning of the OP states: "His latest infraction was made as he gave a speech at a *radical Muslim conference*"

That paragraph ends with the statement "_Problems in the NFL usually revolve around drugs or alcohol abuse or players being bad influences in the locker rooms. Aboushis problem is an unusual one for pro sports. *Hes a Muslim extremist*._"

So in JUST the first two paragraphs we have claims that this is an "Extreme Anti-Israel" conference" and a "radical Muslim conference" and the young man is a "Muslim extremist".

Personally when I see that kind of red-flag language, I am skeptical.  But let's go on.

What evidence does the article use to show Aboushi is a "Muslim extremist"?
- he posted a picture on his twitter account of an old woman and 4 young Jewish men with the "88 year-old Palestinian evicted from home in Jerusalem by Israel authorities to make room 4 Orthodox Jews.  (some would see this as a commentary on housing policies/permits particularly in Jeruselem others as anti-semitic but no rational person would call it "extreme")

- the article then attempts to bolster this "Muslim extremist" image by claiming he may have gotten this idea from a relative who posted an anti-semitic cartoon concerning the same issue.  Now, that cartoon is more accurately labeled anti-semitic *but it has nothing to do with Aboushi* - he didn't post it nor did he comment on it.  So what the article is doing is "guilt by association" using a relative, however distant.

Definative proof he is a "Muslim extremist"?

Not yet because the article then states: _From there, Aboushis conduct *has continued to get more extreme*._

Ok so a tweet with a picture is not extreme enough.



> On April 19th, just one week prior to the draft, Aboushi praised a conference sponsored by Islamic Relief (IR), a charity that the Israeli government has labeled a front for Hamas and that has been cited for both receiving and giving huge sums of money to al-Qaeda related groups.



Now, I'm expecting to see something like a speech here - about the glorious Palestinians crushing of Israel, driving those wicked Jews to the sea and all that.  It's very disappointing. 

It's a single tweet: * "Beautiful NJ fundraiser event for the kids of Palestine in refugee camps.  We are beyond blessed just for the lill things."*

WOW!!!!  How extreme!  The dude's scary!

Now this isn't actually a conference he praised (looks like the OP got that wrong) but a fundraiser sponsored by: Events ? Islamic Relief USA to raise money for kids.

The article then claims that this charity is "a front for Hamas" and giving huge sums of money to Al Quada.  It negates to say that Britain cleared it of any terrorist associations in 2010.  It also offers no sources to support it's allegations.
*
So, we  now have an "extreme Muslim" based on two tweets and a relative's cartoon and inaccurate information about a charity.
*

Now we have another bit of evidence from the article that this man is an extremist - another tweet:  "65th anniversary of the Nakba and palestinians all across the world are still thriving".  Nakba is contentious for Israeli's but important to Palestinians.  How it is regarded depends on which lense you are viewing it through.
*
We are up to 3 tweets and a relative's cartoon.*

We are now into the meat of the articles claim - Aboushi gave a talk at a "radical Muslim" conference given by El-Bireh Palestine Society, a group "associated with blatantly anti-Semitic and terrorist propaganda."

Really now?

Thing is...this is a really small group that appears to have been largely inactive until recently when they decided to start up again.  A look at their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.566977416667785.1073741830.139165199449011&type=3 reveals little that is scary or concerning.  So what evidence does the OP provide to show this is an extreme group?  



> Speaking at the Societys August *1986 *Fifth National Convention held in Dearborn, Michigan was Fouad Rafeedie. Two years later, the INS charged Rafeedie with being a high-ranking member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a terrorist group.



1986?  They have to dig back almost 30 years?  And the "evidence" is a speaker who, at the time hadn't done anything wrong but was charged with something two years later?

The rest of the article follows along these lines - guilt by vague and undocumented associations.  In fact - the only actual links provided are a *few web page images posted by people on facebook* with* no other information* and no way to deduce their authenticity.  When you go to their website - there are tons of photos - skimming through page after page shows nothing horrific - mostly people having fun.  I couldn't find the image of Hitler but I stopped after a while. 

I see no further point in going further on in this article - it is more of the same.

So, we have 3 tweets, a relative's cartoon, a debunked claim that an Islamic Charity is associated with Al Queda, and an unproven claim that a conference supporting Palestinians is "extreme Muslim".

*Why on earth should anyone take this source seriously and write in in order to ruin a good young man's career?*  I find this sleazy and disgusting.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Its downright comical how hard some peoplevare working to pretend that this conference was innocuous.  Never mind the evidence... just deny, deny, deny.
> ...


OK. Let's get on Facebook and Twitter and ask him personally where his sentiments lie.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 11, 2013)

I'll break my silence on this one last time to make a simple point.

If anyone here believes that the depiction of the *entire* map of Israel as a "Palestinian" flag is not *highly offensive* to Israelis and Jews everywhere, you're kidding yourself.  

If I knew nothing other than the fact that Oboushi spoke at a seminar that used this depiction of the map of Israel as its logo:





that would be more than enough for me to conclude that he engaged in highly questionable behavior for a semi-public figure.

By the way.... yesterday Oboushi posted on his Twitter page something that vaguely suggested that he had been wrongfully criticized.  Some other Twitter person then asked him to simply come out and say whether he advocates for the elimination of Israel.  He then (I'm betting at his agent or the Jets suggestion) deleted his tweet.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> I'll break my silence on this one last time to make a simple point.
> 
> If anyone here believes that the depiction of the *entire* map of Israel as a "Palestinian" flag is not *highly offensive* to Israelis and Jews everywhere, you're kidding yourself.
> 
> ...



and i would find that war crimes, crimes against humanity, administrative detention without charge, apartheid like conditions, the failure to deal with the regugee problem israel caused, settlements and land theft far more offensive to palestinians and justice loving human beings everywhere than some little logo.

if that is what drives you and israelis  and american jews into a friggin' furor than you should thank your lucky stars because your lives are good.

and ya wanna know something. muslims are increaasing in america and your behaviour, the behaviour of jews and zionists, is not going without notice...they will learn...and that is what democracy looks like.

boo friggin' hoo...the palestinians didn't make a logo with a star of david...get real, whiner.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 11, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



Feel free to - it would be far more honest than this piece-of-crap article.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> I'll break my silence on this one last time to make a simple point.
> 
> If anyone here believes that the depiction of the *entire* map of Israel as a "Palestinian" flag is not *highly offensive* to Israelis and Jews everywhere, you're kidding yourself.
> 
> ...



You "break your silence" and don't address a single actual point!  Yes, a one-state covered by a Palestinian flag couuld be offensive to some - but that in and of itself no where near covers what the article claimed.  Being offended does not equal being accused of being allied with terrorists, being a radical organization etc. none of which was proven in the OP.  It was a disgusting bit of smear job.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Roudy, _et al,_
> 
> 
> United States Senator Bobby Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, a Arab-Palestinian. 5 June 68 in Los Angeles.
> ...



About 70 people killed in about 40 years.

*Israel has done more than that in a day.*

Thanks for bringing this up.



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore, Roudy, _et al,_

That was only a sample example list.  And that list was limited to ones involving Americans.  It was by no means a complete list.



P F Tinmore said:


> About 70 people killed in about 40 years.
> *Israel has done more than that in a day.*
> Thanks for bringing this up.


*(COMMENT)*

The IDF is defending against Hostile Arab-Palestinian aggressors.  Those organizations that sponsored those kinds of events _(but not limited to those)_ I listed.  

It would take several pages to list all the terrorist attacks made by Palestinians in the last 60 years.

The point I was making is that there is no way the Palestinian can deny they have and established history of conducting terrorist actions on an international scale.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Jul 11, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



The OP links to no sources for it's claims and some of it's claims (for example the one about Islamic relief) were blatently false.

You can highlight and bold all you want but you are only regurgitating the OP's unfounded claims and guilt by vague association.  Please - show me the "different images of Hitler" that are supposed to be there - I couldn't find it.

 It's really pathetic.  Why don't you route out actual terrorists for a change?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by The Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What part do you disagree with?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Roudy, _et al,_
> 
> That was only a sample example list.  And that list was limited to ones involving Americans.  It was by no means a complete list.
> 
> ...



Still a drop in the bucket compared to Israeli terrorism.

Israel "defending itself" against the people it attacks. That is rich.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 11, 2013)

So, as of yet there is no evidence that Aboushi is a "radical Muslim", or associated with "extremists" or spoke at an "extremist" conference.

I seriously hope he does not lose his career because of hateful targeting and malicious lies.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> So, as of yet there is no evidence that Aboushi is a "radical Muslim", or associated with "extremists" or spoke at an "extremist" conference.
> 
> I seriously hope he does not lose his career because of hateful targeting and malicious lies.



It is the same slime that kind dumps on everyone who stands up for the Palestinian's legitimate rights.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Like the UN Secretary General says:  "Nothing can justify terrorism  ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts."



P F Tinmore said:


> What part do you disagree with?


*(COMMENT)*

I disagree with:


"combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means"
"advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda"

By "whatever means" is Machiavellian era thinking.  Humanity (less some cultures) has developed much farther than that.  The Arab Convention ignores the "principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

The second issue is that most terrorist actions are undertaken to support a religious or political agenda.  While it is true that Hamas, Fatah, and several other Palestinian and Jihadist agencies, are criminal enterprises, with an established history, in the several hundreds _(if not thousands)_, of terrorist events, these actions serve to further both religious and political opposition to the decisions of the international community.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 11, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Roudy, _et al,_
> 
> That was only a sample example list.  And that list was limited to ones involving Americans.  It was by no means a complete list.
> 
> ...


Tinnie doesn't want to hear that.  His buddies are just angels in his mind, just like the other Sunni angels who have not a care in the world about killing Ahmadis, Shiites, Christians, Hindus, etc.  By the way, the Egyptian army has just recently killed dozens of Hamas gunmen.  I hope that Hamas has sent Tinnie word on his magic computer which really isn't there so that Tinnie can sit "shiva"  for the gunmen.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, Roudy, _et al,_
> ...


When Tinnie's close pals wear out their haloes, Tinnie will get them some new ones.  And  it really is rich and follows the Arab line that Israel attacked first.  Can we really expect anything different from Tinnie.

2013 Six Month Report: 5,635 Violent Attacks Committed Against Jews in Israel, West Bank | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore; Coyote;  _et al,_

Oday Aboushi is of Palestinian decent; but more importantly he is a US Citizen, having been born in NY.



P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So, as of yet there is no evidence that Aboushi is a "radical Muslim", or associated with "extremists" or spoke at an "extremist" conference.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Political leanings and religious beliefs are mutually exclusive - of his career path - as a professional football player.  I may not agree with a damn thing he says relative to American Foreign Policy, Middle East Politics, or religion.  He has the same rights to express his views as any other American; and we are bound to protect those rights for him.  

BUT, he does play good football.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Like the UN Secretary General says:  "Nothing can justify terrorism  ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts."
> 
> ...





> "combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means"



What means of self defense do you consider acceptable?



> ...shall refrain in their international relations...



Israel is* in *Palestine. Where do you get "international?"



> ... territorial integrity or political independence of any State,...



This one is always good for a laugh.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...


Tinmore, I am curious about your attitude. When was the last time you were in Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Never, and you?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 11, 2013)

p f tinmore said:


> hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > p f tinmore said:
> ...


2008


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> p f tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > hossfly said:
> ...



Where all?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > p f tinmore said:
> ...


I was invited to dinner at one of your relatives in Gaza City and a couple of days later I was given the keys to Ramallah by Abbas himself.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Yeah, right.


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So, as of yet there is no evidence that Aboushi is a "radical Muslim", or associated with "extremists" or spoke at an "extremist" conference.
> ...



Destroying the State of Israel is not ANYONE's "legitimate right".   And that's exactly what the 'from river to the sea' sloganeering the map crap is all about.  

There ARE indeed legitimate Palestinian aspirations - but none of that will be met by murdering Israelis.  HAMAS advocates genocide, so does the PFLP, Islamic Jihad and any number of other groups - and whoever is supporting them is supporting genocide.


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It's a lot more believable than some of the whoppers you've posted, Tinny!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





> There ARE indeed legitimate Palestinian aspirations



Such as?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 11, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Israel still has the whopper award.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


But your selective inability to find or verify doesn't disprove those claims, does it?  It merely confirms your bias.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, Roudy, _et al,_
> ...


Nah that's just the repetitive propaganda and lies you keep spreading.

 Ya sure, those "innocent" Palestinians never committed terrorism or suicide bombings or blew up buses or shot rockets.  Those evil Zionists are the aggressors. Got anything new to say or is it  the same old same old lies and terrorist worshipping garbage?


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 12, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



americans presume innocence.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Jul 12, 2013)

LOL, the only thing extreme here is this hilarious 'article' written by the lunatic Jewish extremist David Horowitz, who is quite laughable and not to be taken seriously. 

The Bigoted Attacks on Palestinian NFL Player Oday Aboushi - The Daily Beast



> It was no surprise, then, that his website would publish a hatchet job article on Aboushi alledging that he is anti-Semitic and involved with clandestine terrorist activity. Of course the article, typical of the sort, was filled with wild exaggeration, outright lies, and the sort of guilt by association that is more embarrassing for the author than for the target. It stops just short of telling you that Aboushi&#8217;s sister&#8217;s boyfriend&#8217;s neighbor&#8217;s dog once urinated on a fire hydrant a block from a Jewish community center and thus, Aboushi is an anti-Semite.
> 
> Among the outlandish accusations in the FrontPage piece was the claim that Aboushi was anti-Semitic for tweeting an image of a Palestinian woman standing outside her house, in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem, after she'd been evicted so Israeli settlers could take it. Even the State Department deplored such actions by Israel as violations of their obligations. *The author even went so far as to try to connect Aboushi to a speaker who the INS charged with being part of a terrorist group. How can the the INS, which dealt with immigration and doesn&#8217;t exist anymore, charge people with involvement in terrorism? By doing this in 1988, years before Aboushi was even born, and violating constitutional rights. Perhaps most insidious was the claim that Aboushi was anti-Semitic for using the term Nakba, which Palestinians use to describe the period of their expulsion and disposession from 1947 to 1949. Well, the author probably never learned that it was likely Israeli military who propelled the term into its modern usage. So there you go, the Israeli military is anti-Semitic too.*
> The article was penned for no reason other than to create a smear campaign against Aboushi and give the Jets a public relations headache so big that they might not find it worth keeping Aboushi on the team. We should hope that this is not what happens, but it's undoubtedly the intention.
> ...





.........

This proves some members of the American Jewish community work as outsourced extensions of Israel's campaign to censor the Palestinian Idenitity through their propaganda.

Israel's so called 'values' get tossed in garbage bin once you realize Jews and Zionists worldwide actively try to censor Palestinian identity and even going so far to try to destroy a Palestinian's career through made up accusations and pressure. 

Those intentions are the intentions of an extremist and reveal some Jewish Americans and Jews worldwide aim for. Which blatantly makes us understand their occupation and its instincts and makes us not fall for their crocodile tears.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 12, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



So you are saying that *taking those claims one by one and debunking them* (which I did in a prior post) - is proof of a bias? That the fact *the OP ITSELF doesn't offer proof* of those claims means I'm biased?  That searching out the truth means one is biased? Are you nuts? Roudy - maybe this is one you should give up on and admit - it's a piece of crap OP.  And you talk about other people making up wild claims and supporting them to the death


----------



## Ropey (Jul 12, 2013)

I'm not sure why people don't research to be certain that there is verifiable proof prior to posting. 

But then when I search for information I don't do a side search.  I don't use keywords that support the post and simply look for valid sites that may contain this proof.

I search the site first. I used to do it the other way as well, but there's too much diatribe out there.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



One example of (too) many.



> *Israeli soldiers cleared over killings *
> 
> On July 22, 2002, Israel dropped a one-ton bomb on a house in Gaza City, killing Hamas leader Salah Shehade *along with 16 other Palestinians, including nine children. *
> 
> PressTV - Israeli soldiers cleared over killings


----------



## Coyote (Jul 12, 2013)

Ropey said:


> I'm not sure why people don't research to be certain that there is verifiable proof prior to posting.
> 
> But then when I search for information I don't do a side search.  I don't use keywords that support the post and simply look for valid sites that may contain this proof.
> 
> I search the site first. I used to do it the other way as well, but there's too much diatribe out there.



I admit - I've been guilty of using poorly researched sites before - it's bitten me in the butt.  But generally I find the use of language keys and certain rhetorical strategies tend to red flag articles for me and I won't take them seriously or waste time on them.

Verbage includes: extreme, extremist, fascist, genocide, Marxist/Stalin/Hitler/Nazi comparisons, rabid, racist, anti-semite - adjectives that tend to be used carelessly (thus merit a closer look) and who's purpose is to inflame rather than inform.  Nazi comparisons are usually the worst and cheapest shots.  I am also very suspect of "guilt by association" strategies - especially if the articles claims are based almost entirely on that.  That's a typical Conspiracy Theory tactic.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 12, 2013)

I think what I really hate is when someone pulls together a hate-piece defaming an innocent person, or trying to make it out he's not really "one of us" - he's done nothing to merit this other than supporting the Palestinian cause.  There is no evidence he's supported or advocated extremist views or violence or terrorism.  He's just an ordinary young man who's got the chance of a lifetime he's worked hard for and what the OP and it's supporters are doing are to effectively censor him from supporting the Palestinians.  There is a difference between supporting the Palestinians and supporting terrorism.  A considerable difference.

He's just a kid, a football player - an ordinary person and as American as any.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why people don't research to be certain that there is verifiable proof prior to posting.
> ...



Nothing will get me to disregard an article faster than name calling. There is no room for that in legitimate reporting.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, this question is asked and answered a lot.



P F Tinmore said:


> What means of self defense do you consider acceptable?


*(COMMENT)*

That is exactly the issue.  The West Bank and Gaza Strip are quarantined because they engage, as part of an organized effort condoned by their elected leadership, in crimes against humanity and war crimes.  


Part II, Article 7, Para 1(a): Murder (Crimes against humanity) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Part II, Article 7, Para 2(a):
"Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;​
If the Palestinian has a legitimate grievance, then it needs to pursue the grievance through the International legal process.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is* in *Palestine. Where do you get "international?"


*(COMMENT)*

This is the "grievance."  The claim alleges that the Jewish People took control of a portion of Palestine by force of arms.  

The first part of the counter claim is that Israel declared Independence (right of self-determination) pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and as recognized as legitimate by Palestinian Authority.  The second part of the counter claim is that subsequent areas brought under Israeli control were a result of repelling armed aggression, on multiple occasions [Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (Self-Defense)], by Hostile Arab/Palestinians (HoAP) who were aided and abetted by the multiple Arab Armies.


Part II, Article 8, Para 2a:  Invasion (Crime of Aggression) - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;​


P F Tinmore said:


> This one is always good for a laugh.


*(COMMENT)*

Reference:  "... territorial integrity or political independence of any State,..."

This is a grievance.  It claims that the territorial integrity and political independence of the "State of Israel" is a legal fallacy or fiction on the Part of Israel and the United Nations.  This needs to be argued by the Court.

Of course the counter claim is that the Jewish Agency _(acting on behalf of the Jewish People in Palestine)_ accepted the Partition Plan passed by the UN General Assembly, formed an Interim Government and Declared Independence; then, applied for membership to the UN, which was review and favorably recommended by the UN Security Council (S/RES/69), and subsequently approved by a full vote of the General Assembly [A/RES/273(III)].

Inherent in the Palestinian Claim is the accusation that the UN had no such authority, and that the Palestinians had some prior claim of sovereignty.

This needs to be litigated in court with a final resolution which should include:

War Reparations [Money that one or the other party (Israel 'v' Palestinian) has to pay to another because of damages caused during the last 65 years.]
War Restitution [An equivalent or compensation (loss, damage, or injury caused); war, terrorist attacks, and act of aggression.]

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Why, Tinnie, many of us know that the Arab propaganda machine (of which you seem to be a part of) tells whoppers all the time.  Gee, maybe it wasn't your relative with whom I had dinner in Gaza City.  It could have just been a close friend of yours.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



So did you have falafel?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Just as in Korea and Vietnam, I didn't ask what I was eating but I did recognize the collard greens and grits. Yum yum.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Wise not to inquire to closely as to protein


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



Examples?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, this question is asked and answered a lot.
> 
> ...



Like defending their country.



> Part II, Article 7, Para 1(a): Murder (Crimes against humanity) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
> Part II, Article 7, Para 2(a):
> "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;​



Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that *there are two main classes of protected person:* (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and *(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).*

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

That argument is based on false premise.



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Taqiyyah, hudna, turnspeak to name a few. Plus the fact that an Arab leader will say one thing in a speech to the public and the opposite to the Arab audience, giving people of your stripe incentive to say the translation was a lie or taken out of context.  Much like the Jet's rookie and his innocent little speech. Over.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



You still have not provided any examples.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Just whom do you think you are kidding, Tinnie?  There is so much Arab propaganda being spread around the world, and you appear to have no problem with spreading some of it.  I think by now many of the viewers have your number, but keep on trying, Tinnie?  It is very amusing to see how hard you try.  As an aside, let me say that it is pathetic how much Arab propaganda is spread against the Jews and/or Israel, but those who spread this propaganda are very, very quiet about the Arabs and other Muslims killing others (even each other) in the name of a religion.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



*Holy smokescreen, Batman!*

All that blabber and still no examples of Palestinian "whoppers."


----------



## Roudy (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Seriously? You want us to bring up all those times you posted bullshit things like "here is a flag of 'Palestine' from atop a movie theater in Jerusalem before 1948'" When it was proven that it was a flag of Jordan / Arab League.  

Funny part is you've posted that stupid flag like 100 times, despite the fact that each time you do, it is disproved and you are embarrassed exposed as a liar and false propagandist.  

Let me ask you a question, is the reason you keep repeating these lies because you hope that maybe one day you'll get lucky and your lie will stick to a person who doesn't know better?  You Hamas terrorist supporters have no shame, no shame at all.  Always trying to prey on the ignorant and uninformed, like yourselves.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

There are several different classes of targets to which the Palestinians are alleged to have assaulted.   My sample list (previously published) was important.  It gives a wide variety of criminal allegations, over an extended period, in multiple venues.

Murder and Assassination in multiple countries; multiple nationalities.
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.
Unlawful Acts relating to piracy on the high seas.
Multiple armed assaults in multiple countries, killing multiple nationalities.
The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
Taking of Hostages

I gave examples of each of these.



P F Tinmore said:


> Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that *there are two main classes of protected person:* (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and *(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).*
> 
> That argument is based on false premise.


*(COMMENT)*

If the "false premise" is a viable argument, then it should be a "slam-dunk" win in court.  But I don't think that is the case.  I don't know of any humanitarian law that condones:


2nd Rosh Ha'ir restaurant bombing: Carried out by Palestinian Islamic Jihad together with Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades.
Nablus school bus bombing:	Hamas claimed responsibility.
Netanya school bombing:  Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Nor, am I aware of any special dispensation that any International Law (Humanitarian or Criminal) provides for the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) to target any civilian not party to the conflict.

The "protect persons" argument is based on "humanitarian law," as in the Geneva Convention.  That is merely one aspect of law.  I cited "criminal law," which doesn't depend on humanitarian law definitions - but criminal law definitions of which the HoAP is alleged to have violated.  I did not cite the GCIV, or any other Humanitarian Law.  Nor did I cite a law that distinguishes between nationalities.

If the argument holds that Israel is sovereign, than the argument also holds that the HoAP is a terrorist.

The "Occupation" is a protective measures to avoid further collaborative efforts on the part of the HoAP and the Arab League to undermine the sovereignty of the State of Israel.  The HoAP and the Arab League have an established historical pattern of attempting to use armed aggression _(a violation of International Criminal Law)_ to overthrow the sovereign nation.

The State of Israel is not in "Palestine the sovereignty."  Israel is in "Palestine the former Mandate."  And nothing short of a cool, calm, and collected litigation effort can change that.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jul 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Glad I'm not a Jets fan.  I don't think I could pull for a team with someone like this on the roster.  I have no problem with people expressing their views, but this crosses the line.  And for a player in New York (the city with the largest Jewish population in the US), this guy is making bad choices of who to associate with.



I wrote a letter to the Jets off the link on that article titled how to contact the Jets - you can send them an email and let them know how you feel about their team players being involved in promoting anti semitism.  FFA has been very successful in convincing sponsors for Al Jazeera dropping them.  Foster Grant dropped Al Jazeera advertising for them, so did Hershey and many more companies.  It is through writing emails and making phone calls that these companies backed out from supporting the anti semitic Al Jazeera.  

The same will be accomplished if everyone will take the time to write an email off of that link inside article.  I sent my letter yesterday and then mass emailed the story out for others to do the same.   If everyone does their part the Jets will move fast to fix this mess.  - Jeri


----------



## Coyote (Jul 12, 2013)

Jeremiah said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > NY Jets Player Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference | FrontPage Magazine
> ...



Why do you want to do that to him when the entire article is bunk?  Is it just hate?  Seriously?


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jul 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



*Has anybody quoted what he said at that conference? I found nothing else negative about him anywhere. Good Lord...leave the kid alone.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Israel is in "Palestine the former Mandate."



There is no *in* Palestine the former Mandate.

The Mandate owned no land and had no borders of its own. Palestine did not depend on the mandate for its existence and continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the same could be said of Palestine.  It had no borders of its own.  It was a regional designation.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Again, if any of these arguments had some validity to them, then the Arab/Palestinian should not be afraid to take the claim to court.  

Palestinian is a region, not a sovereign nation.  It is very much like the description of the Levant.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Jul 12, 2013)

Bloodrock44 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah said:
> ...



Exactly - all of this is based on a few inoccuous tweets and a lot of guilt by association.  Geez....is no one capable of examining the actual evidence before trashing this man's future?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the same could be said of Palestine.  It had no borders of its own.  It was a regional designation.
> 
> ...



Not true.

A region is an undefined area.

Palestine is defined by international borders.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Who's borders?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the same could be said of Palestine.  It had no borders of its own.  It was a regional designation.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

What borders?

v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Who's borders?
> 
> ...



Geesh, Rocco, you are starting to sound like MJB.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well, if MJB says it is a "undefined" region, then she and I are in agreement with the Ottoman Empire that ruled it for 800 years.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Who's borders?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine is a Region.  It was one of many territories contained inside the Levant.



			
				Article 95 said:
			
		

> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries *as may be determined* by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Treaty of Sevres 1920



What we call Palestine today, is an artificial territorial expanse for political convenience.  It had no boundaries prior to the Mandate.

In fact, all the surrounding countries, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, are defined today by protectorate devised boundaries.  Hence, all the straight lines.  With the exception of Egypt, none of the other surrounding countries existed.  They are political sovereignties born out of trusteeships (of one sort or another) of the Allied Powers.  Even Egypt and the Sudan, as well as Iraq and Kuwait, were modifications of modern times by one or more of the Allied Powers.

The idea that Palestine had some Arab political institution that qualifies as a state or sovereignty, is pure fiction to further the claim that they are defending what is really a nonexistent country.

Surely, if there had been a country called "Palestine," the Ottoman Empire would have known about it; as well as the Allied Powers.  If there was any real substance to the claim, someone would have acted on it by now.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 12, 2013)

There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.

But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.

Then they had their families generational land and possessions ripped away and became displaced people.

That is the heart of the issue......not the label, legitimate or not, that others have assigned to the territory. 

And until that injustice is addressed there will never be peace. ..


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For someone who claims he is not an Arab, Tinnie certainly tries very hard.  However, has anyone ever seen Tinnie mention that Jordan got 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate.  Why isn' he complaining that the "Palestinians" aren't ruling this huge area instead of the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia?  It appears when other Arabs receive something like this, Tinnie has no complaints, but if the Jews receive a tiny part, it is a catastrophe in Tinnie's mind.  I sure wish that Tinnie would tell us about this great country of "Palestine" -- such as the names of the kings who ruled the country, the laws that were made, the currency which was used, etc.  How about it, Tinnie?  Surely since you appear to want us to believe you know so much about the area, you can tell us all about this.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

Sunni Man;  _et al,_

There it is.  That is the key.



Sunni Man said:


> There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.
> 
> But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations who had trusteeship; and as long as Arab/Palestinian perceives _(not that there was one)_ an "injustice," there will never be peace.

Logically, what can be done?

Containment and quarantine!  How do you achieve containment and quarantine?  "Continued Occupation" until such time as the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) accepts the reality that Israel is a sovereign nation.  Without regard to the perception held by the HoAP, they will now have to settle with even less than was originally apportioned to them.  And absent a commitment to peace, there will be a requirement to maintain the containment and quarantine.

Problem Solved!  

It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to withdraw the Independence and Sovereignty of Israel.  It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to force a stipulation that would intentionally cause either the outbreak of hostilities or the destruction of the Jewish National Home.  That leads to the consequence that must be accepted; no expectation of peace from the HoAP.  Knowing this, in order to reduce the spread of violence, containment and quarantine is required.  The international community, the proponent for the Partition Plan over a half century ago, must accept the continuation of the conflict and learn to live with the outcome without causing any more injury.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

Hossfly,  _et al,_

Why?  Because the Arab/Palestinian see this as an Arab controlled nation.



Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

We argued this point once before.  Many refuse to accept that, included in the original Mandate was "Trans-Jordainia;" even though it says it on the front cover of the Mandate.  That is largely because the Mandate, in regards to the Jewish National Home (JNH), exempted the Eastern Portion of the Mandate (Trans-Jordan) from JNH apportionment.  It was already allocated for the Hashemite King _(by a special Agreement concluded on February 20th, 1928, the British Government recognised the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan)_.  The Mandate Commission's last evaluation of the Palestine and Trans-Jordan Mandate was the Examination of the Annual Report for 1938, was performed on 29 June 1939, just before the outbreak of WWII.   On 26 June, 1946, after WWII, the Hashemite Kingdom made application for membership.

There is a belief that the Arab/Palestinian wants to separate the Mandate (Palestine from Trans-Jordan) in order to make it appear that the Arab inhabitants received less than half of the Mandate, when in fact they received 87.5% (77% for Jordan and 10.6% for the remainder), leaving about 12.5% of the original Mandate for the Jewish National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 12, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.
> 
> But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.
> 
> ...


Since the ancestors of the Christian Copts are some of the original followers of Jesus, do you think your Sunni Brethren will ever let them live in peace?  I wonder if you can tell us why some Egyptian officials told the people in Gaza to come home to Egypt.  Could he be telling these people that their roots are originally in Egypt?  After World War II, millions of people were displaced, and no doubt these people had ancestors who lived and farmed there for thousands of years (the same as the Hindus whose ancestors lived for thousands of years in that land carved out of India to form Pakistan).  Somehow, the displaced Europeans didn't try to kill others but somehow got on with their lives.  Isn't it strange, that Muslims (those who are Arabs, Africans, and Asians) seem to have no problem moving to American, Canada and all the different countries in Europe.  How could they possibly have left the land that their ancestors had lived on for generations?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 12, 2013)

eots said:


> YES FREEDOM 0F SPEECH ENDS WHEN IT INVOLVES ANY CRITICISM OF ISRAEL
> 
> Leave Israel Alone - YouTube


Why, eots, how come you never tell us about how the Muslims want it to be a crime to say anything against Islam?  Appaently you have no problem with that.  And, furthermore, eots, in a Muslim country, your music would be haram.  In fact, you might be thrown in jail because of it.  Isn't it strange how many posters here bring up articles from the Leftist newspaper Haaretz where many of the authors of such articles are constantly criticizing Israel whereas in Muslim countries reporters are thrown into jails for their opinions.  Apparently eots has two sets of rules -- one for Israel and one for the Muslim countries.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Sunni Man;  _et al,_
> 
> There it is.  That is the key.
> 
> ...



whether you like it or not, "enlightened" sounds a bit racist to me, almost a remnant of the time when other human beings were enskaved and owned.

it also smacks of "manifest destiny".

maybe if we back off such designations, we may move closer to solution.

perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.

most unenlightenedly,
sealadaigh


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

reabhloideach, _et al,_

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.



reabhloideach said:


> perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.


*(COMMENT)*

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.  



reabhloideach said:


> sounds a bit racist to me, almost a remnant of the time when other human beings were enskaved and owned.


*(COMMENT)*

Hummm, I didn't get that at all.  An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking.  I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, if MJB says it is a "undefined" region, then she and I are in agreement with the Ottoman Empire that ruled it for 800 years.
> 
> ...



But Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922 so this is a non issue.

It is only wasting space on the page.



> What we call Palestine today, is an artificial territorial expanse for political convenience.  It had no boundaries prior to the Mandate.



As was the case for other countries after the war. Is there a point to this statement?



> In fact, all the surrounding countries, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, are defined today by protectorate devised boundaries.  Hence, all the straight lines.  With the exception of Egypt, none of the other surrounding countries existed.  They are political sovereignties born out of trusteeships (of one sort or another) of the Allied Powers.  Even Egypt and the Sudan, as well as Iraq and Kuwait, were modifications of modern times by one or more of the Allied Powers.



Indeed, but you are leaving out the most important difference. Where the countries listed had borders defined by others, the people became citizens inside those borders and continued to live in their homeland.

It was quite different in Palestine, however. Palestine was overrun by foreigners and most of the natives no longer can live in their homeland.



> The idea that Palestine had some Arab political institution that qualifies as a state or sovereignty, is pure fiction to further the claim that they are defending what is really a nonexistent country.
> 
> Surely, if there had been a country called "Palestine," the Ottoman Empire would have known about it; as well as the Allied Powers.  If there was any real substance to the claim, someone would have acted on it by now.
> 
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> reabhloideach, _et al,_
> 
> Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.
> 
> ...





> While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181...



Why do you keep  bringing this up. Resolution 181 transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Sunni Man;  _et al,_
> 
> There it is.  That is the key.
> 
> ...





> This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations...



The Palestinians had the right to reject the partition plan. Since the UN had no authority to implement the plan without Palestinian approval they abandoned the plan.

The Palestinians were in complete compliance. They did what they had the right to do.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

GA Resolution 181(II), as recognized by the Palestinians, and the UN, was the basis for the portion of the original partition that the Jewish Agency and Interim Government of Israel accepted.  It was an agreement.

The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab Higher Committee rejected it, does not make it any less valid.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach, _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I think your interpretation is somewhat different from that of the UN at the time.



			
				EXCERPT A/AC.24/SR.45  5 May 1949 said:
			
		

> The General Assembly had to determine first of all the criterion on which to base its decision to admit Israel. Ordinarily, applicant States were merely required to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter. *However, in so far as Israel had actually been created in November 1947 by a resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II)), the Assembly* had first to consider the cardinal question of whether the new State in its present structure conformed to the previous decisions affecting it which had been adopted by the United Nations itself.
> 
> In that connexion, Mr. Malik quoted from section F, part I of the Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which stated that sympathetic consideration should be given to the application for membership of either the Jewish or the Arab State, when the independence of either as envisaged in the plan had become effective and the declaration and undertaking as envisaged in the plan had been signed by either of them.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ 54. Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818) (continued)



This application was recommended for approval by the UN Security Council.

My interpretation, the GA interpretation, and then your interpretation.  I guess we agree to disagree.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

There was no requirement for Palestinian Approval.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man;  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the Palestinians had the right to reject the offer (Recorded in A/AC.21/7
29 January 1948). 

The authority of the General Assembly to consider the application of Israel was not contingent on Palestinian approval.  It was done with the consent of the Security Council.

The outbreak of hostilities was a direct confrontation with will of the General Assembly, for which trusteeship of Palestine was held under Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> GA Resolution 181(II), as recognized by the Palestinians, and the UN, was the basis for the portion of the original partition that the Jewish Agency and Interim Government of Israel accepted.  It was an agreement.
> 
> ...



A lot is *said* when it comes to Israel, however, little of it can be documented as fact.

Resolution 181 had a long list of procedures, commission, and reports. Of course all of this would be documented.

Do you have documents, or is all this just meaningless say so?


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I think I supplied the links.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > GA Resolution 181(II), as recognized by the Palestinians, and the UN, was the basis for the portion of the original partition that the Jewish Agency and Interim Government of Israel accepted.  It was an agreement.
> ...


*(QUESTION)*

Is there some document you are looking for specifically?

Resolution 181(II) doesn't need and has no requirement for a long list of "procedures, commission, and reports."  But I have supplied the end result documents.  You wanted the UNSC review and recommendation, I supplied it.  You wanted a UNSC Progress Report, I supplied it.  You wanted the GA Discussion, I supplied it.  You wanted the various GA resolutions, I supplied them.  You wanted the Palestinian approval of 181(II), I supplied it.

What are you saying is missing?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> There was no requirement for Palestinian Approval.
> 
> ...



The fact is that Israel was declared in Palestine by foreigners. The UN had nothing to do with it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think I supplied the links.
> 
> ...



The bottom line is that the UN transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states. Like I had previously stated.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

Yes, and that type of understanding is a core problem.



P F Tinmore said:


> The fact is that Israel was declared in Palestine by foreigners. The UN had nothing to do with it.


*(COMMENT)*

While it is true that the Jewish People did, under the right of self-determination, Declare Independence, which is what all countries do, the UN was very much involved from the start to the finish.

You may consider them foreigners, but certainly they were not.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, and that type of understanding is a core problem.
> 
> ...



You have yet to provide information showing where foreigners have the right to self determination.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

In a true sense, there was no transfer.



P F Tinmore said:


> The bottom line is that the UN transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states. Like I had previously stated.


*(COMMENT)*

Originally, there was the recognition of sovereignty in response to the Declaration of Independence, pursuant to Part I, Section F, of the GA Resolution 181(II) of the Partition Plan.  The boundaries for the Jewish State were set in Part II, Section B, or the Resolution and Annex A (the Map).  So stated in the Declaration notice.

That is how it is done.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> In a true sense, there was no transfer.
> 
> ...



More Israeli say so. Israel lied about accepting the resolution 181 borders but on the ground Israel had already blown past those borders before they declared independence.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

The Charter does not make that distinction (foreigner/non-foreigners).



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It says "peoples."



			
				Article 1 said:
			
		

> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and *self-determination of peoples*, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> The Charter does not make that distinction (foreigner/non-foreigners).
> 
> ...



You interpret "peoples" to be anyone from anywhere can go anywhere, kick the people out and claim self determination.

If that is true, who would be the people who are forbidden to have external interference. According to your definition there is no such thing as external interference.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, of course.  This is the answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > In a true sense, there was no transfer.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The "Israelis lied."  It couldn't be because their was a Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) uprising.  It just couldn't be anything the HoAP did ---- no!

The HoAP shot themselves in the foot and want a to play victim.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, of course.  This is the answer.
> 
> ...



Another Israeli lie. The Zionists stated goal was all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They were merely carrying out their plan by attacking Palestinian civilians with their military. Foreigners cannot claim self defense when they are attacking people who are in their own country.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

The Jewish People were encouraged to immigrate; first by the Ottoman Empire over several hundred years, and second by the Mandatory with the consent and approval of the Allied Powers and the League of Nations.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The intention of the "external interference" terminology is to prevent other countries from interfering in the course of development.  In this case, the adjacent Arab Nations, they themselves all products of the very same process, became the "external interference" to partition process.

The phrase "external interference" had nothing to do with the Jewish People who, by mandate, were engaged in the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.  This being the original intent.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> The Jewish People were encouraged to immigrate; first by the Ottoman Empire over several hundred years, and second by the Mandatory with the consent and approval of the Allied Powers and the League of Nations.
> 
> ...



So external interference is OK if you have the proper excuse. I don't recall seeing exceptions mentioned in the law.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is so much non-sense.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It makes no difference what the original preference was pertaining to the goals of the Zionist.  It is what they compromised and accepted.  They accepted the UN Partition Plan.

It was the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) that broke the peace; not once, but several times, in order to achieve by force that to which they were not entitled. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Foreigners cannot claim self defense when they are attacking people who are in their own country.


*(COMMENT)*

Everyone has the right to defend themselves.  The Jewish State had the right to defend themselves against the aggression posed by the HoAP.  There is no international principle against the right of self-defense.  The HoAP, opposed to the Partition Plan, attempted to use force to overturn the UN inspired plan.  Failing in that, the HoAP in conjunction with the Arab League, attempted to overturn the UN Partition Plan.  Failing that, they attempted twice more.  Failing across the board, they know want to claim they have been victimized by the heavily outnumbered Israelis.

The HoAP have not been able to face the consequences of their actions in over six decades.  There is yet, no evidence that the HoAP has any intention of changing that behavior pattern and adopting a peaceful resolution.  That is why, today, they are "occupied."  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

I didn't say that.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I suppose that the UN Security Council could authorize intervention (external interference).  But that is not what happened here.

The region was under trusteeship via a sanctioned Mandate.  So the UN had control and oversight.  The UN is not an external interference.  The UN via Mandate, encouraged immigration for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home.  That is not "external interference" - that was the Mandate!  That was the expressed intention going back to the San Remo Convention which adopted the spirit and intent of the Balfour Declaration. It was then effected through the Treaty; which became the applicable law.

There was no "external interference" until the Arab League got involved and invaded.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> The region was under trusteeship via a sanctioned Mandate.  So the UN had control and oversight.  The UN is not an external interference.  The UN via Mandate, encouraged immigration for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home.  That is not "external interference" - that was the Mandate!  That was the expressed intention going back to the San Remo Convention which adopted the spirit and intent of the Balfour Declaration. It was then effected through the Treaty; which became the applicable law.
> 
> There was no "external interference" until the Arab League got involved and invaded.


So the 'Mandate' wasn't 'external interference'??

Get serious..........


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

Sunni Man,  _et al,_

No, the Mandate was not "external interference."



Sunni Man said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The region was under trusteeship via a sanctioned Mandate.  So the UN had control and oversight.  The UN is not an external interference.  The UN via Mandate, encouraged immigration for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home.  That is not "external interference" - that was the Mandate!  That was the expressed intention going back to the San Remo Convention which adopted the spirit and intent of the Balfour Declaration. It was then effected through the Treaty; which became the applicable law.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In fact, for the most part, the Mandate did not change anything in the daily life of the Arab Palestinian.  At the conclusion of WWI, the region ceased to be under the sovereignty of the Ottoman/Turkish Empire which formerly governed them.  The Mandate merely replaced that which was lost, for the people not yet able to stand by themselves as an independent nation.   The 117 thousand square kilometers of Palestine _(27,009 square kilometers or 23%) _and Transjordan _(about 90,000 square kilometers or 77%)_ region, one of three Type "A" Mandates _(the other two being Syria/Lebanon and Mesopotamia)_ was a Mandate here part of the regional inhabitants (Transjordan) had been identified as having reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized _(hence the need for Article 25 in the Mandate for Palestine)_.  The Council of the League of Nations in September 1922, essentially exempted Transjordan from provisions of the Mandate relative to the Jewish national home and the Holy Places.   While the British Government expressly accepted full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan and undertook that such provision as might be made for the administration of that territory should conform to those provisions of the Mandate which had not been declared inapplicable, special negotiations were underway to Transjordan toward independence. On 20 February, 1928  the British Government recognized the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan _(soon to be known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)_.  Thus, the first partition of the Mandate was effected and an Arab State created; from the Jordan River to the western border of Mesopotamia _(also under a separate Type "A" Mandate protection by the UK - in transition to become the Kingdom of Iraq, a fully sovereign country in October, 1932.)_.  The next step of the Mandate was the establishment and reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. This was to prove the more difficult task given that hostile nature of the Arab Palestinian.

Mandate Regimes are not "external interference;" but a charter mechanism by which the peoples, under tutelage, are eventually capable of managing their own affairs - and by which new states are often born.  As has been pointed out before, regionally ---> Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria, and the Sudan are all products of the process.

Nearly all of these nations have exhibited and inability to maintain peace and tranquility.  But in most cases, there was no alternative than to grant them independence.  It may have been a mistake to categorize the Type "A" Mandate countries as nearly ready to stand on their own.  Clearly it wasn't the case.  And today, the Palestinians have pursued conflict for more than six decades.  What does that tell us about their ability to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Sunni Man,  _et al,_
> 
> No, the Mandate was not "external interference."
> 
> ...


You can't be serious........??

The 'Mandate' was the seminal event that lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region.

To try and divorce it from the 'cause = effect' paradigm is incredulous to say the least.  ..


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

Sunni Man,  _et al,_

I am deadly serious.



Sunni Man said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > No, the Mandate was not "external interference."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab inspired confrontation with the Jewish Community and the Opposition to the Mandate, greediness and segregationist attitude lead to 60+ years of conflict.  That lays right at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.    All the civil land grants, titles and property were protected no matter were it was within the former Mandate.  All that was effected was the name in which sovereign powers were assigned.  There was no need for the constant uprising, or three wars, or the Intifadas.  

What "lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region" was the inability of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to cooperate and refrain from the use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Sunni Man,  _et al,_
> 
> I am deadly serious.
> 
> ...


So if a gang staged a home invasion into your house and took up residence.

And forced your family to live in the garage.

You wouldn't fight back to regain your home and all of your possessions no matter how long it took? 

You would just cooperate with the gang and refuse to use any sort of force??

Give me a break........


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> reabhloideach, _et al,_
> 
> Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.
> 
> ...



you seem to link "enlightened" with support of israel and most of the support of osrael comes from european, and particularly western european, nations or those nations or those nations with european ancestry.

you also have been mentioning UNGA resolution 181.

perhaps racist was a poor choice of words and ethnocentric would have been better but when you say "enlightened" thast is a value word and i get the impression that it is being applied to first world countries.

i don't know. you tell me, but i think most people when they here that term, or terms like "advanced" or "progressive" they are generally applying it to or speaking of white nations and thaat is what springs to mind.

also wandering around in your statements is the UN, as though that somehow is connected to the quality of "enlightenment". the UN needs a massive restructuring to better democratically represent the world's peoples.

i could go on, but that will do for now. i think it was a very bad choice of a word on your part.

i remain unenlightened in solidarity with all the other peoples of the world who reject colonialism and its remnants.

here is the question that no one ever seems to answer. using israel as an model, make a rule that you would be willing to apply to all people and express it in general terms...how about...

practitioners of a religion should be allowed to carve out a sovereign state based upon that religion, displacing the inhabitants of the region currently living in that planned future state in order to maintain political control of that state.

hell, liberia made more sense.

ya know, people call me an anti-semite and all, but i actually look for a way to fit an israel into my mindset in such a way that the concept of such a state can be applied to all other peoples of the world and it just ain't happenin'. i am not going to make an exception for jews anymore than i will make an exception for  mormons, muslims, satanists, or whatever (and we are talking about the creation of a new state) etc. the way i figure it, it is the people who treat a group of people as especial people based upon their ethnicity, religion, whatever who are the bigoted ones. why must i allow jewish people special privilege that i am unwilling to allow others.

i can see visions the independent republic of moldova dancing in some young goth's eye at this very moment.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

Sunni Man,  _et al,_

I don't agree with your analogy.



Sunni Man said:


> So if a gang staged a home invasion into your house and took up residence.
> 
> And forced your family to live in the garage.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This is more analogous to you living in the unincorporated portion of the "county."   Along comes the nearby "City" and legally annexes your portion of the "county."

Your property rights are still protected.  Little changes except you are now subject to the same laws as other citizens of the incorporated city.

But if you put-up an armed fight against the city, your legal status changes from law abiding citizen to criminal in residence.  Criminals are arrested and face a penalty.  It you remain peaceful and conduct yourself accordingly, little else changes.  If you feel the Annexation was illegal, you have the right to challenge it in court.  You do not have the right to start your own little war.

The problem with most Palestinian arguments is they attempt to suggest the Arab Palestinian made no hostile move at all.  When in fact, 



Page 9 said:


> The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire.
> 
> *SOURCE:* http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf



Population  The figures given for the distribution of the settled population in the two proposed States  are approximately as follows: (Page 5, Same Source)
.......................................Jews
.............................................................Arabs 
..................................................................................Total
The Jewish State ..........498,000.......... 407,000 ..........905,000
The Arab State ...............10,000.......... 725,000.......... 735,000
City of Jerusalem ..........100,000.......... 105,000 ..........205,000​


			
				Pages 9-10 (The first Arab-Israeli war said:
			
		

> On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged
> its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the
> State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities
> immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day,
> ...



The HoAP is always trying to portray itself as the defender that was aggressively attacked by this horde of foreign invades that swooped-in and took their land.  When in reality, it was the Arabs attacked the newly proclaimed State of Israel.  The HoAP opposed the UN Partition Plan and took the position that the plan provided for the dissection, segregation or partition of their country, or which gave special and preferential rights and status to a minority.  They chose to demonstrate their opposition by making an unsuccessful coordinated military assault.  In the end, the HoAP lost even more land.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Ropey (Jul 13, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach, _et al,_
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gsqBEPSrd0]Janis Joplin - Try (just a little bit harder) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Sunni Man,  _et al,_
> 
> I am deadly serious.
> 
> ...



why are we assuming that the ottomans or the british or the european jews or whoever had any rights over this land and this people and isn't the message being sent to the palestinians by this history is that force rules?

i do not have any idea why we are assuming even that a balfour letter or any other doccuments carries any weight other than the weight of arms.


----------



## Ropey (Jul 13, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man,  _et al,_
> ...



Ok, so clearly nothing means anything unless it follows your logic. Good that you have no power but some words on a forum.  The others who are dealing with these issues are like so far past where you find yourself.

And we rush headlong into a Sunni/Shia schism that will  make the I/P issue as if it was mere flickering of candles with regards to the deaths.   

Already over 100,000 and counting in Syria and I see so little about it.  

Enlightenment is the ability to see what is happening in the world and being able to remain calm and logically objective with the realization that the movements of the world are multi-generational.

Do you not feel the pain in Syria? Do you not feel the pain in the territories?

Why do you remove yourself from one and not the other?  

An enlightened person can.  Regardless if they agree, they accept the enlightened premise.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 13, 2013)

Ropey said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



naw. i'm tried out. give me a good reason.

why should i believe that the establishment of a religious state by a people foreign to the region where that state is established and resulting in the expulsion of the indigenous population...why is that a good thing.

would you accept it for other beliefs? i wouldn't, and i do not accept israel for that reason.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Sunni Man,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't agree with your analogy.
> 
> ...


Bad analogy......

A better fitting analogy would be; if a foreign entity like China came and annexed your portion of the county.

Would you be agreeable with that and not oppose it??   ..


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 13, 2013)

Ropey said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



ah yes, argument by insult and diversion.

all i am asking for is consistancy in argument and i am not getting it, nor have i ever.

as for what is happening in the world is you have a religious state that is the result of european colonialism plopped down smack dab in the middle of almost a billion people who have been trying to shake off the shackles of european colonialism for what, a century, and before that, turkish colonialism (i.e. multigenerational) and shaking off those shackles successfully.

man, you all gotta be cuttin' with everclear that sugary wine your drinkin' every year on passover and chantin' "next year in jeruasalem"  to be able to convince yourselves that that hair-brained scheme was gonna work.

as for me, i would be very happy if the USA and other super powers withdrew and let these countries solve it own their own. we sure as hell ain't setting a very good example of how a real democracy works.


----------



## Ropey (Jul 13, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



You can not remove yourself from the issue and clearly want me in it personally.

Meh


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

reabhloideach,  _et al,_

This is a "big" question!  



reabhloideach said:


> why are we assuming that the ottomans or the british or the european jews or whoever had any rights over this land and this people and isn't the message being sent to the palestinians by this history is that force rules?


*(COMMENT)*

Territorial longevity does not establish the right rule.   Power, control and influence determines the right; and in modern time, the recognition of customary law.  Largely, as a result of the impact of WWI, four major empires collapsed:  The Czar, The Kaiser, The The Habsburg Emperor, and The Sultan.  The Sultan ruled an Ottoman Empire that, among other huge holdings, controlled all of the Middle East.  And in each and every case, rule was maintained by enforcement; not to dissimilar from today.  Over time, to reduce conflict and war, treaties were developed.  And the "Rule of Law" was crafted, and has been evolving ever since.  Oddly enough, Treaty Law really was codified to that way it is today, until the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).  This Vienna Convention assembled the general Customary Laws that had formed over time into one codex.

Treaties often determine the sovereign authority over territories as territories change hands and boundaries are delineated.  

Breaking a treaty usually results in some sort of penalty; normally in the form of restitution, reparation, compensation, and (worst case) war.  In the case of the Spanish American War, the US (among other things) received The Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Island of Guam as part of the compensation and war reparation.  Guam and Puerto Rico are unincorporated territories of the US.  The US retained sovereignty over the Philippine Islands as an unincorporated territory until the Treaty of Manila (1946) when it was granted sovereignty as an independent nation.

One could turn the question around and ask, what makes anyone thing that the Arab Palestinian earned any right to rule the undefined territories.  They don't even know what the administrative boundaries of Ottoman Palestine were.  We know that because the Ottomans told us the region was undefined within the Levant.  So who are the Palestinians and how did they come by authority to rule?



reabhloideach said:


> i do not have any idea why we are assuming even that a balfour letter or any other doccuments carries any weight other than the weight of arms.


*(COMMENT)*

There are two important issues here:


The Balfour Declaration is a Statement of Intent and Concept.  It demands nothing of anyone.  It shows and intent and concept into the future.  There are a half dozen key enforceable documents that were created that set the conditions for the Balfour Declaration to be reality.  But the Balfour Declaration is a form of influence.  And ultimately, we know it was very influential because today, almost a Century later (94 years), there is the State of Israel, a Jewish National Home _(the intent and concept)_. 

A piece of paper is as strong as the iron and will of those that agree to it.  In the case of Palestine, the Treaty of Sevres documents the Ottoman/Turkish Empire relinquished sovereignty over the Middle East _(among other vast expanses)_ and hands that sovereignty over to the Allied Powers, with some provisions attached.  Part of those provisions were the (guess), ---> implementation of the Balfour Declaration; a condition of the Treaty.

Today, the UN _(the successor organization to the League of Nations)_ recognizes the sovereignty of the State of Israel.   Clearly, there are elements within the Arab/Palestinian Community that do not recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel; and have established a historical pattern of behavior by challenging that sovereign status by force of arms.  Like the Spanish-American War, eventually the bill comes due.  One side or the other, is going to have to pay in the form of restitution, reparation, compensation, and (worst case) war.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## patrickcaturday (Jul 13, 2013)

> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man,  _et al,_
> ...




*First of all do us all a favor and speak in plain english.  Stop trying to impress us all with your ability to invent new phrases to show how intellectual you are, "  HOSTILE ARAB PALESTINIANS " just because you add a few adjetives ( sp ) to a name does not change the basic nature of the name .  I mean it is the old a rose is a rose argument.  Get real no one is impressed.
Second,YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS I MEAN REALLY !!!
" ... All civil land grants, title and property were protected ... "  That is rediculous on the face of it. In 1948 the Bedouin owned approx. 100% of the Negev they are now down to 2% soon to be 1%  The Palestinians controlled East Jerusalen soon they will be expelled, The aparthied wall the settlements, you should be ashamed to write such B.S.  And the only plan that you come up with for the palestinians to deal with this land theft is for them to accept it and lie down and be used as a rug.  Sorry I am not that enlightened.
Third you should be made aware that some of your basic instincts are leading you to racisist assumptions.  You insist that western definitions, such as the definition of property,
should be western ( White ) rather than Eastern ( colored ) a civilization that has existed for thousands of years sort of kiplingesq of you, I mean little brown brother and all that. 
*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Sunni Man,  _et al,_
> 
> I am deadly serious.
> 
> ...



Indeed, they should have just rolled over and let the crooks steal their country.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> reabhloideach,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a "big" question!
> 
> ...





> Clearly, there are elements within the Arab/Palestinian Community that do not recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel;...



Could you explain why that is?

This should be good.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

patrickcaturday,  _et al,_

Thank you for your kind words.



patrickcaturday said:


> First of all do us all a favor and speak in plain english.  Stop trying to impress us all with your ability to invent new phrases to show how intellectual you are, "  HOSTILE ARAB PALESTINIANS " just because you add a few adjetives ( sp ) to a name does not change the basic nature of the name .  I mean it is the old a rose is a rose argument.  Get real no one is impressed.


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, it is not my phrase.  It comes from an Intelligence Report Series that makes a  distinction between Hostile and non-Hostile Arab Palestinians.    



patrickcaturday said:


> Second,YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS I MEAN REALLY !!!
> " ... All civil land grants, title and property were protected ... "  That is rediculous on the face of it. In 1948 the Bedouin owned approx. 100% of the Negev they are now down to 2% soon to be 1%  The Palestinians controlled East Jerusalen soon they will be expelled, The aparthied wall the settlements, you should be ashamed to write such B.S.  And the only plan that you come up with for the palestinians to deal with this land theft is for them to accept it and lie down and be used as a rug.  Sorry I am not that enlightened.


*(COMMENT)*

There are two issues here:


First, you bring-up the issue of the nomadic and semi-nomadic Arab Bedouin. This is an issue that dates back to 1858 and the requirement by the Turks for landowners to officially record property as a means of regulating land-related matters in the Ottoman Empire.  I'll be honest, this issue is beyond my understanding.  But what I do know, it didn't _(as you suggest)_ just start with the Israelis.  Additionally, the Israeli War of Independence in 1948 (the Arab Invasion) caused about 5/6th of the Bedouin to scatter in all directions _(Gaza Strip, Egypt, and Jordan)_; abandoning the Negev.  The current Planning and Building Laws, as well as the law pertaining to Eminent Domain, are not working in favor of the Bedouin.  There definitely needs to be some special recognition by the Israel courts to make a landmark ruling.


Second, there is no real "apartheid" Israel.  The security wall separates the potential Palestinian terrorist (Hostile Arab Palestinians) from their potential victims and targets.  The claim of "apartheid" is merely an attempt by Palestinians to stir public opinion and gain sympathy for an otherwise criminal cause.



patrickcaturday said:


> Third you should be made aware that some of your basic instincts are leading you to racisist assumptions.  You insist that western definitions, such as the definition of property, should be western ( White ) rather than Eastern ( colored ) a civilization that has existed for thousands of years sort of kiplingesq of you, I mean little brown brother and all that.


*(COMMENT)*

This is an merely an _ad hominem_ attack, pulling the "race card."  The genetic make-up of Jews and Arab are essentially the same; they are defined by their culture, not by race.   There is no essential race differential and I never alluded to a difference in race to justify a cause or argument.    

There is no difference in definition of like articles between the race.  This is a linguistic fallacy.  As you say, a rose in the Middle East is still a rose in the America.  What makes water in America, makes water in the Middle East.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 13, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach, _et al,_
> ...


Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims.  Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own?  I'm really at a loss here.  Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan is so much larger than the tiny state of Israel.  Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Actually, you are more qualified to answer this.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, there are elements within the Arab/Palestinian Community that do not recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel;...
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Partition Plan was rejected formally by the Arab Higher Committee on  19 January, 1948, claiming it violated the provisions of the UN Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. They implied that the Arab Palestinian would oppose any Plan that  their country, or which gave special and preferential rights and status to a minority Jewish Population.


Key to the dispute is that the Arab Palestinian had some sort of veto power over the UN Partition Plan.
Key to the dispute is that the Arab Palestinian believed that the remainder of the Palestine Mandate was their country.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> patrickcaturday,  _et al,_
> 
> Thank you for your kind words.
> 
> ...



perhaps you should actually read what he is saying. basically, in my opinion, he is saying that your elevation of western values and concepts over those of other non-european peoples seems to have a racial component. i moved to the word "ethnocentric".

you seem to blindly accept that "white might makes right" without question and conversely, that any objection to this ethnocentric agenda (for lack of a better word) is wrong.

perhaps you would break down the vote of UNGA 181 for us, and explain the diference between the UN in 1947 and now, as well as how the USA has exercised their veto power on UNSC votes regarding israel.

please also when you do this, realise i accept the UN with its many flaws while many of those who would seem to be your compatriots regularly call for throwing that baby out with the bathwater, claiming that the israeli people are under-represented...which they are not. they are over-represented.

i don't think the israeli jews represent a mid-eastern culture, as a bookkeeping note.

apologies to caturday if i substantially mis-interpreted his point.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Actually, you are more qualified to answer this.
> 
> ...



They did.

It was.

BTW, the Palestine mandate was not a "place."


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 13, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



after all these years i should not have to explain to you that i have always been opposed to foreign colonial powers imposing artificial political boundaries on their former colonies. i am not sure this is the proper forum for discussing the mass migration of hindus from the state known now as pakistan and the mass migration of muslims to the state known now as pakistan.

we get it already. you think all  muslims are the same and you hate them.

what a paternalistic attitude..."why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own"...it wasn't the "limpin' lumps o' brick dust" doing the carvin' now, was it? 

bless you, massah hoss, someday we kafirs be white inside jus' like you, yer lordship.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 14, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims.  Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own?  I'm really at a loss here.  Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan so much larger than the tiny state of Israel.  Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.



You conveniently overlook some critical facts concerning the partition of India.  For example, there was a blood bath on both sides with trains packed full of of dead muslims arriving in Amritsar.  Or the fact that Pakistan is not only predominantly Muslim but culturally very very different from the main part of India just as Muslim Bangladesh is culturally different from Pakistan.  Maybe it has nothing to do with special "priveledge" but rather, cultural demographics.

Of course...none of this has to do with IP does it?


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 14, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims.  Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own?  I'm really at a loss here.  Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan so much larger than the tiny state of Israel.  Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.
> ...



LOL...c'est la naqoyqatsi, mi amiga. nil siochain go saoirse.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 14, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims.  Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own?  I'm really at a loss here.  Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan so much larger than the tiny state of Israel.  Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.
> ...


And you convenienty forgot to add the reply by Seal I answered. Of course it has to do with I/P when I'm making comparisons of apples to apples. The boyo makes remarks using other countries and situations to do comparisons, then when I reply in kind, I'm the one who is guilty. Thanks for showing us how the game is played.


----------

