# Arabs get back West Bank land!!!



## Hoffstra (Oct 3, 2013)

In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land

the land was stolen in the 1970s.

settlements were built there, but removed a few years ago.

..but Israel refused to give back the land to its rightful owners.

Finally, the courts have decided to give the land back to its owners and today they reclaimed their land.

VICTORY FOR PALESTINE!!!!!!!


----------



## Roudy (Oct 3, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> 
> the land was stolen in the 1970s.
> 
> ...


Oh wow, so Israeli courts decided to give land to the Palestinians.  How exciting.  Not.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 3, 2013)

its a beautiful thing.

justice is done.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 3, 2013)

Yes, Israel is a country of laws and equality.  It's quite beautiful, considering the neighborhood.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHbCGC6amdk]Arabs for Israel - X-Muslims for Israel - Hamas leader's son - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 3, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Yes, Israel is a country of laws and equality.  It's quite beautiful, considering the neighborhood.



actually Israel usually ignores its own laws when it comes to the West Bank.

this is one very good exception.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 3, 2013)

_et al,_

As I said before, the Arab Palestinian will eventually get their land back (West Bank and Gaza).



Roudy said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Israelis cannot keep the land.  It is sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 3, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> As I said before, the Arab Palestinian will eventually get their land back (West Bank and Gaza).
> 
> ...



How is Palestine more sovereign now than it was when they declared independence in 1948?


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 3, 2013)

Sounds like a good thing.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 3, 2013)

Never ending see-saw.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 3, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

I think we've gone over this at least once a month.



P F Tinmore said:


> How is Palestine more sovereign now than it was when they declared independence in 1948?


*(COMMENT)*

Even the Arab League knew that the attempt by Pasha Ahmed Hilmi and the Arab Higher Committee, in 1948 (months after Israeli Independence), to Declare Independence over the same territory Israel already accepted in GA/RES/181(II) --- was a no go. 

However, in November 1988, the PLO accepted the legitimacy of GA/RES/181(II), and Declared Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 3, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> I think we've gone over this at least once a month.
> 
> ...



I know you keep saying that but it is not true.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

How is it "no true."  It is a matter of record.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

What is "not ture?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 4, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> How is it "no true."  It is a matter of record.
> 
> ...



Resolution 181 transferred no land to Israel.

Israel never claimed nor did it ever recognize, either before or after its declaration, the borders proposed by resolution 181. 

Palestine's declaration was within its already existing and still valid borders. There was no other claim on that land.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


What a joke that statement is.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

Your statement is correct, but entirely misleading.  _(In every piece of good propaganda, there is some truth.)_



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Sovereignty is not a real estate transaction.  Of all the Arab States that were created out of the various Mandates _(in fact all the Mandates combined)_, there was no land transfer.  Land transfers are related to ownership, not the creation of states and the establishment of sovereignty.

The Jewish Agency accepted provisions of GA/RES/181(II) in its Declaration of Independence, as well as, in the implementation process prior to the Declaration of Independence.



			
				YEARBOOK OF THE UNITED NATIONS 1947-48 said:
			
		

> In spite of the heavy sacrifices which the Jewish State would have to make in this matter also, the Jewish Agency accepted the proposal for an economic union, terming it a promising and statesmanlike conception. The limit to the sacrifices to which the Jewish Agency could consent was clear: a Jewish State must have in its own hands those instruments of financing and economic control necessary to carry out large-scale Jewish immigration and the related economic development, and it must have independent access to those world sources of capital and raw materials indispensable for the accomplishment of these purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lipush (Oct 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> 
> the land was stolen in the 1970s.
> 
> ...



Jewish settlers were exchange with Arab settlers.

Wow.

Now they'll kill more Jews, to show how thankful they are.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 4, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> Your statement is correct, but entirely misleading.  _(In every piece of good propaganda, there is some truth.)_
> 
> ...



You always try to smokescreen the issues, don't you?

You know, or should know, that when I speak about the people "owning" a country or a country "owning" land I am not speaking about deeds to little pieces property.

Somebody who lives in an apartment in NYC "owns" the US as much as a farmer in Missouri. The deed to a piece of land is irrelevant. People "own" their country by right not by the purchase of land. Everybody has equal rights to their country.

If somebody from Argentina buys land in the US it is still US land. It surely does not belong to Argentina. When the Jews bought land in Palestine it was still Palestinian land. When land is purchased it does not remove that land from a country.

There were no transfers in the countries created out of the ottoman Empire. Lebanon belonged to the Lebanese. Syria belonged to the Syrians. Palestine belonged to the Palestinians. The only transfer required was Palestinian land to Israel. That has never happened.



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

Yes, and you should know that none of those sovereign countries today existed at the time of the Treaty of Sevres.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

There was even a territory called Lebanon; it being the part included in the territory of Syria.  And Palestine was an undefined region with no borders.



			
				THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS  AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10 said:
			
		

> *ARTICLE 95.*
> 
> 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. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, your theory that Lebanon belonged to the Lebanese; Syria belonged to the Syrians; and that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians is not correct.  Lebanon was partitioned off from Syrian territory.  Jordan was partition off from Palestinian territory.  And Israel was partition off under the UN Partition Plan via GA/RES/181(II); call at the time:  The Jewish State.

The State of Israel was created when the Jewish Agency and people exercised their right of self-determination in full cooperation with the Mandatory Power and the UN Palestine Commission acting under the direction of the Security Council.  There was no land transfer.​
Remember, even the territory of Palestine is an artificial assignment by the Allied Powers  _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_.

Your position is not so different for that taken by the Arab Higher Committee back in 1949; a position which has evolved little over the last half century.



			
				Letter and Statement Submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the Delegation of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine and Transmitted for the Information of the Conciliation Commission said:
			
		

> That resolution disappointed the Arabs, and destroyed the hope and faith which they had put in the United Nations. They saw that the recommendations to partition Palestine was contrary to the aims, principles, and spirit of the United Nations charter, and their reaction was one of deep concern and anxiety. They therefore rejected the resolution, and declared their refusal to be bound by it, or by anything deriving therefrom. The said resolution not only failed to respect Arab demands, but was in complete violation of the spirit of the charter, contrary to the principle of self-determination, and embodied the elements of aggression and injustice. For the Arabs of Palestine are the real owners the country, and they compose by far the greatest majority of its lawful inhabitants."
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/AC.25/Org/9 4 May 1949



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 4, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Yes, and you should know that none of those sovereign countries today existed at the time of the Treaty of Sevres.



Irrelevant point.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 4, 2013)

> There was even a territory called Lebanon; it being the part included in the territory of Syria. And Palestine was an undefined region with no borders.



Irrelevant point. Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 4, 2013)

Lipush said:


> Jewish settlers were exchange with Arab settlers.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Now they'll kill more Jews, to show how thankful they are.



Arabs in the West Bank aren't "settlers".

They are natives.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 4, 2013)

> Unfortunately, your theory that Lebanon belonged to the Lebanese; Syria belonged to the Syrians; and that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians is not correct. Lebanon was partitioned off from Syrian territory. Jordan was partition off from Palestinian territory.



It doesn't matter much how the territory was divided. All of the people remained in their respective territory. Nothing was taken from one to give to another.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 4, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> The Israelis cannot keep the land.  It is sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.


Which exists and doesn't exist alltogether as defined by expedience to palistanians, of course. (And which they don't actually want.) The palistanian quantum mechanics.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Arabs in the West Bank aren't "settlers". They are natives.


But of course they're settlers!


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 5, 2013)

docmauser1 said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > Arabs in the West Bank aren't "settlers". They are natives.
> ...



people who have lived on a land for more than 100 years, arent settlers.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...



So... we're to believe that you have decided that 100 years is a benchmark?

By what standards (other than your "... because I say so", claim is the 100 years timeframe a standard at all? 

BTW, the land currently being occupied by arab beggars and squatters was historically not arab-exclusive.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 5, 2013)

docmauser1,  _et al,_

Well, I'm not sure this is all that accurate a model.



docmauser1 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Israelis cannot keep the land.  It is sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There is more than one political face to the Palestinians.  And for the most part, they want more than they are (probably) entitled.  From a sovereignty standpoint:


There are Palestinians that somehow believe that "all the land" that the British earmarked as Palestine (less Jordan), belongs to them.

There are Palestinians that believe all the abandon property and territory in the last century belongs to them.

There are Palestinians that believe believe that given their failures and the turn in events, that only the West Bank and Gaza Strip belong to them.

It will make for interesting peace talks.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> > There was even a territory called Lebanon; it being the part included in the territory of Syria. And Palestine was an undefined region with no borders.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant point. Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922.


So, who was that shakh, emir, pasha, sultan, president, prime-minister of that "palestine" to have "international borders"? That's more than relevant to back the claim up, otherwise the claim's a wishful drivel, of course.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...


But of course they are!


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Who defined the borders?



P F Tinmore said:


> > There was even a territory called Lebanon; it being the part included in the territory of Syria. And Palestine was an undefined region with no borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant point. Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922.


*(COMMENT)*

Are you sure you are not talking about the Mandate?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm gonna try again and again til I get my prayers answered: Oh Lord, please hear my prayer and give Tinny some common sense and if possible, throw in a brain. And check Your spam folder for others' prayers.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 5, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Who defined the borders?
> 
> ...



The mandate did not have any land or borders. It was assigned to Palestine and worked inside Palestine's borders.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> The mandate did not have any land or borders. It was assigned to Palestine and worked inside Palestine's borders.



The Palestine Mandate had no official borders?

sure it did.  they were the internationally recognized borders of Palestine.

Palestine was a Protectorate of Britain, governed by a Mandate issued by the League of Nations.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The mandate did not have any land or borders. It was assigned to Palestine and worked inside Palestine's borders.
> ...



And Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> And Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left.



The UN recommended dividing Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.

the Jews accepted the offer.

a war ensued.

in 1949 the United Nations accepted that a Jewish state had ben created in Palestine, and gave them international legitimacy.

its southern, western, much of its eastern, and its northern border are now internationally recognized.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > And Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left.
> ...



And the rub is that the Jewish state is still* in *Palestine.

Palestine's international borders have never been changed.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> And the rub is that the Jewish state is still* in *Palestine.
> 
> Palestine's international borders have never been changed.



Palestine's border with Egypt is now internationally recognized as Israel's border with Egypt.

Palestine's border with Lebanon is now internationally recognized as Israel's border with Lebanon.

Palestine's border with southwestern Jordan is now internationally recognized as Israel's border with southwestern Jordan.

These are facts, whether you accept them or not.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Tinnie, could you please ask that present King of Jordan to give back the land to your fellow Arabs because it seems that the outsiders, the Hashemites, received 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate and you don't think it is fair?


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 5, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Tinnie, could you please ask that present King of Jordan to give back the land to your fellow Arabs because it seems that the outsiders, the Hashemites, received 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate and you don't think it is fair?



how are the Hashemites "outsiders"???


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Tinnie, could you please ask that present King of Jordan to give back the land to your fellow Arabs because it seems that the outsiders, the Hashemites, received 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate and you don't think it is fair?
> ...


The Hashemite Family Tree goes back to the Murdering Rapist Invader, Mohammed (PBUH), therefore they originated in Arabia and are considered "outsiders" by the original inhabitants. How does that sound?


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 5, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> The Hashemite Family Tree goes back to the Murdering Rapist Invader, Mohammed (PBUH), therefore they originated in Arabia and are considered "outsiders" by the original inhabitants. How does that sound?



Its sounds like you're desperately grasping for a reason to hate the Hashemites.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > The Hashemite Family Tree goes back to the Murdering Rapist Invader, Mohammed (PBUH), therefore they originated in Arabia and are considered "outsiders" by the original inhabitants. How does that sound?
> ...


Not at all. In fact I like the little buggers.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > And the rub is that the Jewish state is still* in *Palestine.
> ...



Recognition is a political move. It does not change legal status. Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 6, 2013)

P F Tinmore, Hoffstra, _et al,_

This is the same old justification for the defiance of the League of Nation, and UN decision to establish a Jewish National Home and the Jewish State through GA/RES/181(II).



P F Tinmore said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This conflict is a result of the Arab defiance of the UN and the attempt to change by force the decision of the UN.  In the course of the conflict, the Arab attack altered the outcome of the UN Security Council implemented Partition Plan.  

Israel Declared Independence and established sovereignty in the same way that all the other Arab States did; under the same protocols.  It was legally recognized by the body that wrote the protocols.

The introduction of the question of "legal status" and "legally acquired" is merely Arab subterfuge _(trying to apply real estate concepts to matters of sovereignty)_.  Yes, there are Armistice Lines around the Gaza Strip _(under quarantine by unoccupied)_, the West Bank and Golan Heights _(occupied)_.  But that is a result of Arab Aggression and the consequence of several failed armed attempts to change by force the establishment of the State of Israel.

The Arab Palestinians had no sovereign rights over any territory prior to 1988; then only limited to Gaza and the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Recognition is a political move. It does not change legal status. Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired.



The United Nations decides what is and is not, legal.

deal with it.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...


Of course they aren't, they're squatters, invaders from neighboring Arab lands.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 6, 2013)

_et al,_

I saw this and thought it would lighten your day, and reset the stage for the discussion.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-evIyrrjTTY]This Land is Mine - YouTube[/ame]

v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Recognition is a political move. It does not change legal status. Israel claims borders on land that it has never legally acquired.
> ...



It is just a political recognition. The UN recently recognized Palestine a state. What does that mean besides nothing? The UN recognizes Israel a state. What does that mean besides the same nothing?

Even the UN's own map of Israel has disclaimers on legal status, territory, and borders.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Of course they aren't, they're squatters, invaders from neighboring Arab lands.



That is a lie.

Most Palestinians have history going back in Palestine for centuries.

Most Israelis have history going back in Palestine maybe 2 generations.  They are the invaders.

Liberate Palestine!!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they aren't, they're squatters, invaders from neighboring Arab lands.
> ...



The Zionists imported foreign settlers by the boatload to be cannon fodder in their takeover of Palestine.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Oct 6, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Most Jews who came to Palestine were refugees with no where else to go--like my mother's family.  The name of "Palestine", in years past, meant a Jewish homeland in peoples' minds.  When my dad first came to the United States, the Gentile hooligan anti-Semites would yell at him, "Go back to Palestine!"


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Most Jews who came to Palestine were refugees with no where else to go--like my mother's family.  The name of "Palestine", in years past, meant a Jewish homeland in peoples' minds.  When my dad first came to the United States, the Gentile hooligan anti-Semites would yell at him, "Go back to Palestine!"



The Jews could have stayed in Europe or gone to North America.

The Jews from Muslim lands were the only ones expelled, and only half of them were expelled.  They could have also gone to France and other European states.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Most Jews who came to Palestine were refugees with no where else to go--like my mother's family.  The name of "Palestine", in years past, meant a Jewish homeland in peoples' minds.  When my dad first came to the United States, the Gentile hooligan anti-Semites would yell at him, "Go back to Palestine!"
> ...



My mom's family could not have stayed in Poland after the war.  The Poles blamed the Jews for what the Germans did to them.  My grandfather's neighbors warned him to get out, because Jews were getting attacked in the streets by Poles.  My mom's family applied for visas to America, but they were denied.  So they went to Israel.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Its great that these Arabs have gotten their land back.

more to come, hopefully.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 6, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



What did the Palestinians have to do with all that?


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 6, 2013)

I just finished Googling eight websites on this subject.  The most balanced report seemed to be in Wiki.  West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestinians and Jews have been fighting over the Westbank for centuries, and each side has some good points.  However, in the end Israel was invaded by Arabs in 1948, but won the war and took the land.  There is little difference between what the Jews did to the Palestinians, and America did by winning the Mexican-American War in 1848.  Neither issue is really satisfied, but in the end, "possession is 9/10s of the law."  And, "he who wins the war, writes the history."


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> ...Palestinians and Jews have been fighting over the Westbank for centuries, and each side has some good points...



wrong.

they only started fighting over Palestine in the 20th century.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Palestinians and Jews have been fighting over the Westbank for centuries, and each side has some good points...





Hoffstra said:


> wrong.
> 
> they only started fighting over Palestine in the 20th century.



I can not believe you have the nerve to continue posting after I outed you as a propagandist stealing this thread from The Political Forum.  

You have no credibility, and are on your way to "ignore."  

You have no shame!






 There you are in the background - ignored.​


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Hopefully Arabs will keep suing, to get back their stolen land.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Hopefully Arabs will keep suing, to get back their stolen land.



Hopefully we can dump all the Palestinians back in Mecca before we nuke it.




​ 
Bombing - the only language Muslims understand.​


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 6, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...


They're catalysts, Punkin.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

These Arabs should sue the Israelis for back-rent for the illegal use of their land.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> These Arabs should sue the Israelis for back-rent for the illegal use of their land.



These Arabs should be happy that Israel has not finished what was thrust  upon them by Arabs in 1948.  But, then I am a "take no prisoners" kind  of guy.








Arab forces surrender to Israel in 1948 in Ramia.  
Speaking as a WASP, Independent voter, I think Israel has been way to generous to Arabs.​


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Israel should stop stealing private property.

It will bite them in the end.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they aren't, they're squatters, invaders from neighboring Arab lands.
> ...


Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind.

Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?
We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag.
When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out.

This declaration by a true "Palestinian" should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth. They were Jordanians (another recent British invention, as there has never been any people known as "Jordanians"), and after the Six-Day War in which Israel utterly defeated the coalition of nine Arab states and took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria, the Arab dwellers in those regions underwent a kind of anthropological miracle and discovered that they were Palestinians - something they did not know the day before. Of course, these people having a new identity had to build themselves a history, namely, had to steal some others' history, and the only way that the victims of the theft would not complain is if those victims do no longer *exist*.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 6, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Yes, that would be AFTER Jordan was supposed to be Palestine, and the Arabs didn't accept and then attacked Israel, and what you see is the aftermath of Arab aggression and attack. Not that they learned their lesson. Apparently one humiliating defeat after another came afterwards.  Very low learning curve,mine might say. 

How is it that the Arabs got to ask for a MUSLIMS ONLY state in Jordan?  Racism, apartheid, anyone? <LOL>


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Roudy said:


> ...



The Palestine Mandate, Balfour Declaration, and San Remo Conference says nothing about a Jewish state.

Just a Jewish homeland.

Also, the United States recognized the West Bank as "Arab Palestine".


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 6, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> I just finished Googling eight websites on this subject.  The most balanced report seemed to be in Wiki.  West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Palestinians and Jews have been fighting over the Westbank for centuries, and each side has some good points.



Not true. There were virtually no hostilities all during the Ottoman period.



> However, in the end Israel was invaded by Arabs in 1948,



Not true. The Arab countries entered Palestine and fought Israeli forces in Palestine.



> but won the war and took the land.



Not true. The war was stopped by UN Security Council resolution. Nobody won or lost the 1948 war.



> There is little difference between what the Jews did to the Palestinians, and America did by winning the Mexican-American War in 1848.  Neither issue is really satisfied, but in the end, "possession is 9/10s of the law."  And, "he who wins the war, writes the history."


----------



## Roudy (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


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


Palestine mandate included a Jewish Palestine, aka ISRAEL, and an Arab Palestine, aka Jordan. Arabs rejected that, attacked Israel, and then you have that map showing the results of the Arab aggression. They then controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody anybody, not the Arab occupiers, and not the so called Palestinians, even mentioning the words "Palestine" or "Palestinians" and in fact used the same lands they occupied in the map of their aggression, to attack Israel once more in 1967, and 1973.  

Get the story straight. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, three, four, five times shame on me?  Ha ha ha. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 6, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished Googling eight websites on this subject.  The most balanced report seemed to be in Wiki.  West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


Hey tinny boy, guess who's controlling those lands now?  ISRAEL. Deal with with it. That's the way of the world. If Arabs truly wanted peace, and not the destruction of Israel to be replaced by a second Arab Jew-free Palestine, they would have a state a long time ago.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Palestine mandate included a Jewish Palestine, aka ISRAEL, and an Arab Palestine, aka Jordan. Arabs rejected that, attacked Israel, and then you have that map showing the results of the Arab aggression. They then controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody anybody, not the Arab occupiers, and not the so called Palestinians, even mentioning the words "Palestine" or "Palestinians" and in fact used the same lands they occupied in the map of their aggression, to attack Israel once more in 1967, and 1973.
> 
> Get the story straight. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, three, four, five times shame on me?  Ha ha ha. Ain't gonna happen.



The Palestine Mandate, Balfour Declaration, and San Remo Conference said nothing about a "Jewish Palestine".


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine mandate included a Jewish Palestine, aka ISRAEL, and an Arab Palestine, aka Jordan. Arabs rejected that, attacked Israel, and then you have that map showing the results of the Arab aggression. They then controlled the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody anybody, not the Arab occupiers, and not the so called Palestinians, even mentioning the words "Palestine" or "Palestinians" and in fact used the same lands they occupied in the map of their aggression, to attack Israel once more in 1967, and 1973.
> ...


Those old, ancient documents still in effect?


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Those old, ancient documents still in effect?



Neo-Zionists are notorious for claiming that the promises to the Jews made in these documents, are still in affect.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Those old, ancient documents still in effect?
> ...


*?*


----------



## Roudy (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Those old, ancient documents still in effect?
> ...


Neo nazis and Islamifacists (is there a difference?) are notorious for making up lies about the true history of Palestine.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Neo nazis and Islamifacists (is there a difference?) are notorious for making up lies about the true history of Palestine.



what is the "true" history of Palestine?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Neo nazis and Islamifacists (is there a difference?) are notorious for making up lies about the true history of Palestine.
> ...


Here ya go, Fraulein.


Brief History of of Palestine, Israel and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict (Arab-Israeli conflict, Middle East Conflict)


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 6, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Here ya go, Fraulein.
> 
> Brief History of of Palestine, Israel and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict (Arab-Israeli conflict, Middle East Conflict)



my name is not Fraulein, so stop trolling.

Its good that some Arabs get their stolen land back.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go, Fraulein.
> ...


Yes it is, Miss.
No it ain't, Miss


----------



## Roudy (Oct 7, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Neo nazis and Islamifacists (is there a difference?) are notorious for making up lies about the true history of Palestine.
> ...


Nothing remotely close to your narration.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 7, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go, Fraulein.
> ...


Even better if they give back all the lands they invaded and stole.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 7, 2013)

P F Tinmore, _ et al,_

Again, a little truth mixed with propaganda.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Arab countries entered Palestine and fought Israeli forces in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

In 1948, the Arab Armies invaded the newly established State of Israel, in the territory under the former Mandate of Palestine.

The Arab position, with respect to the termination of the mandate, was expressed best by the Egyptian Government as stated:



> The representative of Egypt reiterated that his country was intervening in Palestine solely to preserve law and order. With the termination of the Mandate, Palestine had regained complete independence and sovereignty.



This was the use of force by the Arab League to obstruct the implementation of the Partition Plan.



P F Tinmore said:


> The war was stopped by UN Security Council resolution. Nobody won or lost the 1948 war.


*(COMMENT)*

While an Armistice does not declare and end to a War, or declare a winner in the conflict, it cannot be used to suggest a stalemate either.  Clearly, at the outset of the conflict, the Arab Palestinian controlled more territory than it did at the establishment of the truce and Armistice.  By the same token, the Israeli forces controlled more territory at the establishment of the Truce and Armistice, then it did in the beginning.  While it is often said that in modern times there is no such thing as a winner, clearly Israel had the upper hand and the most control at that point and since that time.

Since the time of the 1948-49 War, two additional wars were fought upon Arab instigation and aggravation.  There can be no doubt to the outcome.  Arab Palestinian Forces and Arab League Forces were clearly forced into a retreat; the original Armistice Line being overrun and both Egyptian and Jordan Occupation Forces being totally ejected.

Winning or Losing  --- yes, they may be obsolete terms in the modern age.  But there is very little doubt which forces had established military control and dominance over the areas in conflict.

So, the rational used that "nobody won or lost the 1948 war" is merely a face saving statement that cannot be supported in meaningful or practice measure through territorial or political control.  Clearly, the Arab Palestinian and the Aggressor Cohorts in the Arab League lost considerable territorial or political control.  The "War" is a military outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 7, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _ et al,_
> 
> Again, a little truth mixed with propaganda.
> 
> ...



Indeed, it is called *military occupation.* The outcome of wars with the surrounding countries is irrelevant. 

What matters is that the Palestinians have not surrendered to Israel. There has been no peace agreement ceding Palestinian land to Israel. There is no agreement changing Palestine's long established international borders.

Israel is prematurely claiming victory before the conflict ends.

And please, stop with the resolution 181 shtick already. The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did. Consequently it was never implemented. End of story.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 7, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Even better if they give back all the lands they invaded and stole.



your clapping for your own post?  how pathetic.

The Arabs haven't stolen any land, you're confusing them with the Jews.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Oct 7, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Even better if they give back all the lands they invaded and stole.
> ...



The Arabs get their very name from Arabia, so if there are any Arabs outside of Arabia then, yes, they HAVE stolen land.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 7, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> The Arabs get their very name from Arabia, so if there are any Arabs outside of Arabia then, yes, they HAVE stolen land.



so that means all the homes that Jews own outside of Judea, are stolen?

huh...

here is the historical map of Judah.

all land owned by Jews outside these borders is stolen, according to YOU


----------



## Roudy (Oct 7, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Even better if they give back all the lands they invaded and stole.
> ...


Yeah, how did all those lands become Arab or Islamic then.  By magic?


----------



## Roudy (Oct 7, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > The Arabs get their very name from Arabia, so if there are any Arabs outside of Arabia then, yes, they HAVE stolen land.
> ...



For 700 years when the land was under the Ottoman control, it was called "southern Syria" and then when the Ottoman Empire collapsed after WWI it went under British control.  
In other words the concept of a Palestinian people or state is a hoax.

And here is a more accurate historical atlas representing the ancient homeland of the Jews.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 7, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Oh Hossfly, let them go.  To those of us on the fringe of this debate, Muslims have lied so much in USMB, no one would believe them if they actually told the truth!  Americans are aware of the contributions of Jews, and of the continuous problems created by Muslims.  Do you like exhilarating music with dance?  Check this out!

​


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 7, 2013)

I look forward to Arabs getting back more land in Palestine that was stolen by Jews.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 7, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > I look forward to Arabs getting back more land in Palestine that was stolen by Jews.
> ...



yes, we know that Jews support ethnic cleansing and genocide of non-Jews in Palestine.

but this won't stop Arabs from getting back their land.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 7, 2013)

I commend the Israelis for giving back stolen Arab land.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 7, 2013)

P F Tinmore, _ et al,_

Look at what you are saying here, and the implication.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it is called *military occupation.* The outcome of wars with the surrounding countries is irrelevant.


*(COMMENT)*

No, it is a Chapter VII Self-Defense measure.



P F Tinmore said:


> What matters is that the Palestinians have not surrendered to Israel. There has been no peace agreement ceding Palestinian land to Israel. There is no agreement changing Palestine's long established international borders.


*(COMMENT)*

"Palestinians have not surrendered to Israel" = the Palestinians are self-proclaimed enemies of the State of Israel, at War with Israel.  That makes them an enemy population.

The Palestinians never had sovereignty over the land.  It was not theirs to grant to anyone. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is prematurely claiming victory before the conflict ends.
> 
> And please, stop with the resolution 181 shtick already. The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did. Consequently it was never implemented. End of story.


*(COMMENT)*

Implementation was NOT dependent on Arab Palestinian acceptance. 

The Palestinian has multiple personalities.

One personality says that GA/RES/181(II) was never implemented and has no legitimacy.
One personality uses GA/RES/181(II) as a vehicle to establish independence.
One personality says GA/RES/181(II) is legitimate.

Your position is just one of multiple positions the Arab Palestinian has taken.  It is associated with the Hostile aspect of the Palestinians, the one that promotes and advocates the continuation of a struggle and conflict that is not shared by all Palestinians.  It is a position that makes such demands that are unreasonable and counterproductive to the cause of peace.  It is a position consistent with both the Jihadist and Feday'een.

Reference:  UNSC Resolution 50 (1948)

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 7, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _ et al,_
> 
> Look at what you are saying here, and the implication.



What am I saying? What implication?



> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, it is called *military occupation.* The outcome of wars with the surrounding countries is irrelevant.
> ...



The Zionists went to Palestine to defend themselves?

Rocco, you are a hoot.



> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > What matters is that the Palestinians have not surrendered to Israel. There has been no peace agreement ceding Palestinian land to Israel. There is no agreement changing Palestine's long established international borders.
> ...



You have that back assward. The Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country. That puts them in the aggressive position and the Palestinians in the defensive position. The Palestinians did not "self proclaim" anything.



> The Palestinians never had sovereignty over the land.  It was not theirs to grant to anyone.



Then why is ceding land and changing their borders one of the final status issues in the peace process?



> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Israel is prematurely claiming victory before the conflict ends.
> ...



Let's see. If the Palestinians accepted the plan it would have been implemented. They did not accept the plan so it was not. I don't see how you come to your conclusion.



> The Palestinian has multiple personalities.
> 
> One personality says that GA/RES/181(II) was never implemented and has no legitimacy.
> One personality uses GA/RES/181(II) as a vehicle to establish independence.
> ...


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 8, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Most Palestinians have history going back in Palestine for centuries.


Claiming that Philistein was their ancestor is ridiculous, of course.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 8, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> The Palestine Mandate, Balfour Declaration, and San Remo Conference says nothing about a Jewish state.


Arab help in building a jewish state was enormous, of course.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country. That puts them in the aggressive position and the Palestinians in the defensive position. The Palestinians did not "self proclaim" anything.


But of course they did! They have no borders, no country and no land, but go on fooling the world into believing they've had some sometime someplace somesuch.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore, _ et al,_

I see you are having problems fitting the pieces together.



P F Tinmore said:


> What am I saying? What implication?


*(COMMENT)*

You are saying that the Palestinians are enemies of the State of Israel and there exists a state of war between them.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Zionists went to Palestine to defend themselves?
> 
> Rocco, you are a hoot.


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish we invited to immigrate.  They did not invade.



P F Tinmore said:


> You have that back assward. The Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country. That puts them in the aggressive position and the Palestinians in the defensive position. The Palestinians did not "self proclaim" anything.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, the Jewish were invited by the Allied Powers to immigrate IAW the Mandate.  And they followed the steps for the preparation of independence in the resolution.



P F Tinmore said:


> Then why is ceding land and changing their borders one of the final status issues in the peace process?


*(COMMENT)*

It is part of the process of reparations, restitution, and claims settlements.  Because of the various wars and conflicts, the original land allocations were altered as failed Arab-Palestinian forces receded.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Partition Plan came in multiple parts.  There was the part:

Applicable to the Arab State 
Applicable to the Jewish State
Applicable to the Internationalization of Jerusalem

The Arab Palestinian openly rejected all parts to the Partition Plan.  The Jewish Agency accepted the Jewish State portion which was implemented by the UNPC under the guidance and direction of the UNSC.  War started with the immediate invasion by the Arab League; halting the remainder of the implementation and the UNPC was relieved of further implementation responsibility by the UNSEC-GEN/UNSC.

Part 1 Section B is always subject to Paragraph 14.

The UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) was established.
The UNPC gradually acquired mandatory Powers.
The UNPC establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem.
A Provisional Council of Government was establish for Israel; the Arab Higher Committee declining.
Prior to 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government.
The transitional period for the Provisional Councils of Government was accepted (45 days).
Full responsibility for the administration of that State in the period between the termination of the Mandate and the establishment of the State's independence (2 days).
The UNPC rendered instruction to the Provisional Council of Government for Israel; the Arab Higher Committee declining.
The Provisional Council of Government for Israel recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes; the Arab Higher Committee declining.
Elections for the Constituent Assembly were held in newly independent Israel on 25 January 1949, after Armistice. Elections being delayed due to military invasion.
The Constituent Assembly convened on February 1949, transient law adopted, with the Basic Law established in 1950.
The new economic union and transit was offset by the 1948-1949 War of independence. This essentially setback Israel in the financial arena, post-War. "A New Economic Policy was introduced in early 1952. It consisted of exchange rate devaluation, the gradual relaxation of price controls and rationing, and curbing of monetary expansion, primarily by budgetary restraint. Active immigration encouragement was curtailed, to await the absorption of the earlier mass immigration."

After reviewing the criteria, the UN Security Council favorably recommended in Resolution 69 (1949) Resolution of 4 March 1949 the admittance of Israel; and the General Assembly accepted via A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 the Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.

While it might be said that UN GA/RES/181(II) was not totally implemented, it was Hostile Arab Palestinian defiance and aggression that prevented the UNPC from further progress.  The PLO accepted GA/RES/181(II) legitimacy twice.  It is the Jihadist and Feday'een that deny it.

The fiction told by the Hostile Arab Palestinian, over and over again, is a prerequisite to lend some false credence to the legitimacy of the struggle and the continuation of the conflict.

They demand the right to call themselves "Occupied" so that they can claim GCIV Protections.  Yet, as you can see, you also want to claim you are at war with the Israelis because you want to claim you have been invaded.  Under your logic, both the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not zones of occupation, but huge POW Camps for Hostile Arab Palestinians --- an enemy population that threaten, and use of force _(any and all means)_ against the territorial integrity and political independence of a UN recognized and member State; in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Your other argument is that all of the territory formerly under mandate (less Jordan) is Palestine the Independent.  And thus, you want to claim that the security quarantine and separation is "Apartheid" because the entire State of Israel is really "occupied Palestinian State."   

Both of these positions are absolutely absurd.  Now because you are an Article 13 Jihadist, I know there is no chance of convincing you otherwise.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The Jewish we invited to immigrate. They did not invade.





> *UN Charter definition*
> 
> By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine,* without external interference,* their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.
> 
> The right to self-determination - IHL



Where is the exception to that rule that states that?

I don't see it.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 8, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> 
> the land was stolen in the 1970s.
> 
> ...



A scrap of land that the Israelis evacuated during the withdrawal from Gaza.

A scrap of land that the IDF razed to the ground but had not reversed its orders on.

A scrap of land that the IDF finally got around to revising its orders on, after two years of court petitions.

A scrap of land that the IDF tossed to its former owners as a bone.

*A victory for Palestine?*

*Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha...*






It takes sooooooo little to amuse them...

A few trinkets, a pocket watch, a scrap of wasteland...

You get a Gold Star on your Report Card for _that_ one...

Most humorous faux victory statement of the month...


----------



## Roudy (Oct 8, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> ...


To all the Arab Muslim "Victories"!


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

In 1948-49, the "external interference" was the Arab League.  It wasn't the UN and it wasn't Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Prior to midnight 14/15 May 1948, the Mandatory was the UK with full administration under the Allied Powers.  After 14/15 May, until 17 May, the UN Palestine Commission assume the authority of the Mandatory/International Trustee System under the guidance and direction of the UN Security Council.  There was no point at which the Arab Palestinian assumed any independence.

Second, you must read a little further in your citation:



			
				The right to self-determination in Palestine said:
			
		

> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Your Citation



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 8, 2013)

Tinhead if a Native American came up to you and said your house is on his ancestral land, would you turn over the keys? you better with all the shit your talking on here son.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 8, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> I look forward to Arabs getting back more land in Palestine that was stolen by Jews.



I look forward to cleansing the planet of Muslims.




​


----------



## Hollie (Oct 8, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> I commend the Israelis for giving back stolen Arab land.



I commend Israel for making gestures of good will, even though those gestures are futile in the face of arab intransigence.  

Israel's capture in 1967 of Sinai, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights was in response to Arab aggression. Israel voluntarily returned of all Sinai to Egypt following formal recognition and peace treaty with that nation.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.

There is no "Palestinian" land. There is occupation by arabs of the West Bank and Gaza.

The lesson is the willingness of Israel to return land for peace with her neighbors.
This underlies all treaties and actions (even the unilateral withdrawals from south Lebanon and from Gaza) that followed from 1982 to the present day.

A similar peace with Syria will lead to the return of most if not all of the Golan.

Similarly with the so-called Palestinians in regard to the West Bank and Gaza.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> In 1948-49, the "external interference" was the Arab League.  It wasn't the UN and it wasn't Israel.
> 
> ...





> There was no point at which the Arab Palestinian assumed any independence.



Irrelevant point. Independence is a product of the right to self determination, not a prerequisite.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> In 1948-49, the "external interference" was the Arab League.  It wasn't the UN and it wasn't Israel.
> 
> ...





> Prior to midnight 14/15 May 1948, the Mandatory was the UK with full administration under the Allied Powers. After 14/15 May, until 17 May, the UN Palestine Commission assume the authority of the Mandatory/International Trustee System under the guidance and direction of the UN Security Council.



Indeed, but a mandatory or trustee has no authority to interfere with a people's right to self determination.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The UN did what it believed it had to do.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > In 1948-49, the "external interference" was the Arab League.  It wasn't the UN and it wasn't Israel.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers and the UN set the conditions under which the all the various  people in the region were to exercise their rights in self-determination.  They did it for the Arab States _(Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, etc)_ and they did it for the Jewish State.

It had all the authority it needed.  It was the Arab that was working in defiance of the UN that created conflict.  It was the Arab League that was that acted as the external influence and interfered with the steps towards independence.  It is the Arab that says the struggle started with them and Izz ad-din al-Qassam and the Palestinian Black Hand; and still promotes those same political-terrorist tactics today.

When people look-up Article 13 Jihadist and Article 10 Feday-een; they see a Palestinian looking back at them just like Izz ad-din al-Qassam.  And jihadism is almost universally associated with Islamic terrorism.



			
				PF Tinmore said:
			
		

> Irrelevant point. Independence is a product of the right to self determination, not a prerequisite.


*(COMMENT)*

And the people that wrote-down that concept also wrote that the Jewish People exercise their right to self-determination on May 15, 1948; not the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The UN did what it believed it had to do.
> 
> ...



What land was transferred to Israel?

Got a link?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Indeed, but a mandatory or trustee has no authority to interfere with a people's right to self determination._"


The trustee has absolute authority over its charge.

This authority includes the power of governance and administration and justice and the power of life and death over its inhabitants, and this authority includes the power to propose and dispose of the land, its people and its resources.

Knowing in advance that a civil war was already underway, an sputtering in-and-out of existence, prior to the Termination of the Mandate, the trustee determined to arm the side that it favored best, as best it could without being too obvious about it, and then leaving the inhabitants to shift for themselves, and to find their own destiny.

Which they did.

You were on the losing side of that civil war.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Indeed, but a mandatory or trustee has no authority to interfere with a people's right to self determination._"
> ...





> This authority includes the power of governance and administration and justice and the power of life and death over its inhabitants, and this authority includes the power to propose and dispose of the land, its people and its resources.



Link?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

None.  Independence is not transferred, not for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, or Egypt, --- and --- it wasn't done that way with respect to Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The UN did what it believed it had to do.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

No, I don't have a link --- you do!  The Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt).

Again,



			
				The right to self-determination in Palestine said:
			
		

> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.
> 
> SOURCE: Your Citation



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No link.

Given the British Mandate's suppression of Arab revolts and its trials of Muslims and Jews for capital crimes and their execution of those found guilty...

I'm sure that you can find ample evidence of the extent of British Rule in the Mandate and their power of life and death over its inhabitants without bothering me for a link...

====================

Not that any of that makes a tinkers' damn worth of difference any longer...

Victory on the Battlefield (1948, 1967 and 1973) sorted all that out good-and-proper...

And set aside any old 'legal standings' or 'title' or 'rights' that had been in question during the course of the fighting...

There are new owners in-place now...

They hold deed-title to the land...

They do not require your assent...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> None.  Independence is not transferred, not for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, or Egypt, --- and --- it wasn't done that way with respect to Israel.
> 
> ...





> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan.



Where was that territory? When was it transferred to Israel? What are the borders? where is a map?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



When did the Palestinians surrender to Israel? What is the agreement on land and borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Of course no link.

The British mandate was a monumental flop. It created a war that has lasted a hundred years while accomplishing nothing it was supposed to do.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 8, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...


That music and dance is too classical and highbrow for an old Texas boy. Down here we go for hoedown music with fiddles and banjoes.


 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WF6irnzAiI&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Hava Nagila Texas Style - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Why, the land they're living on Tinmore. What's your major malfunction anyhow?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Since you are off topic anyway, is that your ride or are you just dreaming?

1956 Crown Vic, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Nice duck.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Beachboy said:
> ...


'55. I had a red and white one in'61. Ran like a scalded cat.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 8, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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





This was my ride back in the day.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._When did the Palestinians surrender to Israel? What is the agreement on land and borders?_"


The Arab League acted on your behalf, when they signed cease-fires on behalf of all Arabs engaged in the fighting, in any of 1948, 1967 or 1973.

They acted on your behalf because you did not exist as a polity and had not the competence to do it yourselves; legally or practically.

The borders are the Armistice Lines at the end of each of those conflicts.

The borders are what the Israelis say they are, and what the Arab League agreed to in suiing for a cessation of hostilities.

You can find those Armistice Lines just as well as I can.

Those are the borders, original and revised, at the time of their establishment, per mutual agreement.

If you do not like the borders then you must fight to change them.

Do not count on your Muslim-Arab brethren to come charging over the hill to your aid this time, should you decide to engage seriously.

They (all) have problems of their own, nowadays.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


I had a blue/white '57 olds hardtop in1959 in Munich, Germany.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again with the territorial issues.  You must not believe your own IHL Link.



P F Tinmore said:


> The right to self-determination in Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Again, it is not a real estate deal.  There are no such thing for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, or Egypt, --- and --- it wasn't done that way with respect to Israel.  This is Palestinian propaganda subterfuge.  You are asking for something that doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist for any of the Regional countries.



			
				Cablegram dated 3 April 1949 from the United Nations Acting Mediator to the Secretary-General transmitting the text of the General Armistice Agreement between the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Israel. said:
			
		

> 8.	The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.
> 
> 9.	The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.
> 
> ...



As modified by the Treaty:



			
				Article 3 - International Boundary said:
			
		

> 1.	The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
> 
> 2.	The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
> 
> ...



As I've posted this all several times before, I don't think I'll go through every Armistice Agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 8, 2013)

1950 Chevy Fleetline Deluxe...

With the above color-scheme, or close to it...

Eighteen years after it rolled off the factory floor...

More rust than metal, by then, but one helluva car for a kid who couldn't even shave yet...






Complete with the metal strip down the middle of the windshield and a metal sun-visor across the windshield as the 1950 precursor to tinted windows...






...and a police-style spotlight, to amuse the kiddies, when choosing a spot in the local Lover's Lane...






...and a 216 cubic inch in-line (straight) six-cylinder that was the easiest and most accessible engine that I ever worked on as a half-assed backyard mechanic...






...with a 3-speed on the column, a steering wheel as big as Texas, manual choke, key + push-button (on the dash) starter-ignition, an AM radio, a bench seat, a semi-circle horn-ring, locking glove-box, pop-out side windows, torpedo-back styling, a trunk the size of a dump-truck, a speedometer that optimistically went to 120 mph, and one of those suicide-knobs on the steering wheel, for fast turning...

A most excellent first car for a young fellow who went bargain-shopping and paid for his own...


----------



## Roudy (Oct 8, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Tinhead if a Native American came up to you and said your house is on his ancestral land, would you turn over the keys? you better with all the shit your talking on here son.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 9, 2013)

Roudy said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Tinhead if a Native American came up to you and said your house is on his ancestral land, would you turn over the keys? you better with all the shit your talking on here son.



That's the question that goes unaddressed by tinny and others... others being the rabid Jew haters. Quite obviously tinny grants himself an exception from returning land he occupies that was once Native American. 

That tells me that tinny embraces a double standard and the _inordinate_ amount of time he spends screeching about "Palestinian" Arabs is nothing more than an excuse to promote his virulent anti-semitism.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Oct 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Tinmore's cynical, hypocritical excuse for sitting on Native American land and, at the same time, slamming Israelis, is that the rules of war changed after 1945.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Oct 9, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



And let's also not forget that Tinmore invaded a foreign country, Vietnam, after 1945--adding to his hypocricy.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 9, 2013)

In Tinny's case, it might be virulent anti-semitism, but, frankly, I'm more inclined to believe that it's merely ethnic kinship -based advocacy along with a (un?)healthy dose of Do-As-I-Say-and-Not-As-I-Do which is at-work here.

As to Vietnam, well, Tinny is what we used to call in the service, a Guardhouse Lawyer; he knows just enough about The Law to get himself out of trouble - sometimes, although it usually doesn't work.

Tinny will tell you that our military presence was 'requested' by the 'legitimate' government of Vietnam and that we did not invade.

That will be his excuse, and, unfortunately, it will hold-up under a closer scrutiny - barely.

But this bit about International Law prohibiting territorial acquisition through conquest after 1945, while technically quite true, is, in practice, merely a charming, naive, childish fantasy that both Tinny and Georgie-Boy continually indulge in.

Given that that's just about the only thing they (_Palestinians, and Palestinian advocates and propaganda shills_) have going for them, it's predictable that they play that card so often.

It's about the only card they have left.

No big deal.

Let them cling to their delusions.

It amuses the rest of us, and passes the time.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 9, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Beachboy said:
> ...



I fail to see how Hossfly is off-topic.  It has been proven that Muslim Herd posters such as Hoffstra, or is it *Ronstar* are propagandists, posting the same Pro-Muslim crap all over internet message boards.  Clearly they are not here for discussion.

By placing utubes, links, and graphics that emphasize Jewish joy, the true side of Jews is shown.  Jews have been entertaining America for hundreds of years.  Hell, Israel is practically America's 51st State!  Showing the fun side of Jews is a direct contrast with Muslim terrorism, murder and Jihad.




​ 
People paid over $100 a seat to see the Jewish story _Fidler on the Roof_, I doubt you could give free tickets to Americans to see a Muslim version.  Islam and America are incompatible, and Muslims are so out-of-touch and brainwashed the can not see the truth.  Ask any WASP, we can see this thing objectively.  Muslims are the enemy of America.


By the way, here are the box office receipts from _Fiddler on the Roof_ when it came out in 1971.  Again, these are 1971 dollars.  You can almost double the amounts to convert to 2013 dollars.  We keep hearing about the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.  All those Muslims, and they have NEVER accomplished anything close to _Fiddler_, have they?

Fiddler on the Roof (1971) - Box office / business

*Box office / business for
Fiddler on the Roof (1971) 

    Budget  (Cost to make the film).

 $9,000,000 (estimated)

 Gross

 $10,404,330 (USA) ( 1979)
$50,000,000 (USA)

 Rentals

 $38,261,000 (USA)*

*I think we would all call a movie that cost $9,000,000 to make and earns $98,000,000 a success, wouldn't you?  $89,000,000 PROFIT!* *

A lot of Catholics and Protestants laid down hefty bucks to see Fiddler.  There is NOTHING MUSLIM to compare.  America loves Fiddler!*​


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 10, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Tinhead if a Native American came up to you and said your house is on his ancestral land, would you turn over the keys? you better with all the shit your talking on here son.



Well are you going to answer this question?


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Your ride that you drive on stolen Native American land.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 10, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> "..._Your ride that you drive on stolen Native American land._"


<snicker>...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Tinhead if a Native American came up to you and said your house is on his ancestral land, would you turn over the keys? you better with all the shit your talking on here son.
> ...



Good question. I know several Native Americans and it appears that they can live anywhere they want.

A Native American even ran for vice president of the US about ten years ago.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 10, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


Whereas the native Americans have been on this land for centuries if not millennia, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are recent 20 century invaders from neighboring Arab lands.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



So you are going to keep ignoring my question? if a Native Amercian came up to you and could prove your house is on his ancestral land would you turn over the keys you hypocrite?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2013)

Roudy said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Sure, seriously.


----------



## High_Gravity (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What a fucking fraud you are. All this "native people shouldn't lose their land" is all bullshit to you. Not fun when the shoe is on the other foot is it.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...


C.S. Jarvis, governor of the Sinai from 1923-36:

This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Trans-Jordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.[29]


----------



## Roudy (Oct 10, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Ha ha. It took you like 20 posts to drag that out of him. They're all frauds.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2013)

Roudy said:


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



OK there were some.

Got any stats?


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Irrelevant point. Independence is a product of the right to self determination, not a prerequisite.


Indeed, since arabs "self-determinate" at the expence of others, there's really no independence to talk about.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> When did the Palestinians surrender to Israel? What is the agreement on land and borders?


Indeed, what "occupation" are palistanians and their cheerleaders babbling about?


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> The British mandate was a monumental flop. It created a war that has lasted a hundred years while accomplishing nothing it was supposed to do.


Since arab supremacist aspirations hadn't been furthered, it was a "flop", indeed.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


"some"  Ha ha ha.  Funny funny funny.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Don't let this bother you Hollie.  Whomever wins the war, writes the history.  That is just the way it is.  If we could unwind injustice on this planet to the beginning, there would be some one celled beings running the whole world.

While I find the idea upsetting, I am going to have to go along with my boss's logic, "Where does it say that life is fair?"

Palestinians love to cry to the world about the West Bank land Israelis took from them.  When the truth is, Palestinians started a war against the Jews, and Israel kicked their ass!  Israeli?Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  That is the story those of us who live in "reality" know to be fact.  What a few ignorant, tribal, Muslim terrorists believe is of little importance to anyone.





The Holocaust Memorial in the UK.  
Like 9/11 the real victims are the innocent who lost their lives.
Don not feel any sorrow for the Nazi or Muslim perpetrators.​


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 10, 2013)

*


Beachboy said:



			I made a mistake in this post.
		
Click to expand...

*


Beachboy said:


> By the way, here are the box office receipts from _Fiddler on the Roof_ when it came out in 1971.  Again, these are 1971 dollars.  You can almost double the amounts to convert to 2013 dollars.  We keep hearing about the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.  All those Muslims, and they have NEVER accomplished anything close to _Fiddler_, have they?
> 
> Fiddler on the Roof (1971) - Box office / business
> 
> ...





[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX-zTAgK5HA"]Topol in Fiddler on the Roof - YouTube[/ame]​ *I forgot to add in the $13,600,000 profits from the original Broadway show version, which brings the grand total profit of Fiddler on the Roof to $103,600,000.  Using the Bureau of Statistics inflation converter that would be $598,263,140 profit in 2013 dollars! 

Muslims have never come anywhere near that kind of spending on their story.  In fact Americans do not even care about the Muslim story.  That is because Muslims are viewed as enemies of America, and Jews are considered a real contribution to America's greatness.*


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 10, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> "..._Muslims have never come anywhere near that kind of spending on their story. In fact *Americans do not even care about the Muslim story. That is because *Muslims are viewed as enemies of America, and Jews are considered a real contribution to America's greatness._"



That is because, in The West, the Jews are most commonly associated with Life...






Whereas Muslims strike many Westerners as more like Death Eaters...






Well, _liver-and-heart-of-the-enemy_ eaters, anyway...






Golly-gosh gee-willickers and glorioski... why-oh-why would sane folks lean towards one over the other?


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 10, 2013)

Now, I could point out how much money _Yentl_, (1983) made at the box office, but I think I made my point about how interested Americans are in Jewish history, and the lack of interest in the noise made by Muslims.

More importantly, Jewish Americans give more money to charity than any other religion.  Jewish-Americans Win Alms Race

Yentl tells a story of a 19th Century Jewish woman, (Barbara Streisand). pushing the envelope for women.  Jews help take society into the future, while Muslims cling to the historic failures of Islam.  

This should come as no surprise to anyone who is informed.

​


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 10, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



How many links would you like?

Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Truth about the Palestinian People

Think-Israel

Palestine

If that is not enough, Google has *9,810,994* more.  Just let me know, I can pull them for you.






An American child's view of Jewish and Muslim parents.
Who has the image problem in America?​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Muslims have never come anywhere near that kind of spending on their story. In fact *Americans do not even care about the Muslim story. That is because *Muslims are viewed as enemies of America, and Jews are considered a real contribution to America's greatness._"
> ...



You gatta love Palestinian women. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXu_Y1brzA]Palestinian 'Speed Sisters' Winning Respect - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Muslims have never come anywhere near that kind of spending on their story. In fact *Americans do not even care about the Muslim story. That is because *Muslims are viewed as enemies of America, and Jews are considered a real contribution to America's greatness._"
> ...



Life....

















Looks like life to me...


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2013)

A group of Palestinian girls...










Life


----------



## Roudy (Oct 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> A group of Palestinian girls...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Off topic.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > A group of Palestinian girls...
> ...



The threads evolved


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> "..._Looks like life to me_..."


Fine... as soon as you can point to a Broadway and Hollywood success along the lines of the one already cited, to agree with your perceived equivalency, you're all set... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Until then, the perceived Life-Trip versus Death-Trip observation stands...


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Looks like life to me_..."
> ...



Broadway success' equal celebration of life?  Get real.

Perhaps we can blame the media for some of the inaccurate portrayals. I posted pictures of ordinary real life people - not staged.  It's called life.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


The subtopic at-hand was the simpatico that The West has with Jewish life, as reflected in the Art of The West, and reaching for reasons why this is so...

The Life-Trip versus Death-Trip comparison was served-up as one likely reason...

My grandmama can hunt-down pictures on the Internet of happy little children in just about any culture on the face of the planet...

That's no suitable defense against the Life-Trip-versus-Death-Trip "_Perception Gap_"...

Especially when we are dealing with a misogynistic culture that buries its women-folk in head-scarves (and, sometimes, full-body suits) as soon as they near puberty...

Wake me up when a Saudi Arabian Muslim woman can have four husbands and walk-about the streets of Saudi Arabia obliged to wear no more head-covering or clothing than the average Saudi Muslim man...

And when Islam bans those Sams' Club burlap sacks that they stuff many of their female folk into...

And that so many of their females do not object to because (1) they don't know any better and (2) because they'll suffer in a hundred different ways if they do speak up...

And until that belief-system forswears the use of violence on a religious basis under any circumstances...

Until then...

Islam is poison to The West and entirely incompatible with it... a Death-Trip... and detrimental to the health and safety of The West.

Our Art has long-since reflected this Wisdom and Truth.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 10, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Muslims have never come anywhere near that kind of spending on their story. In fact *Americans do not even care about the Muslim story. That is because *Muslims are viewed as enemies of America, and Jews are considered a real contribution to America's greatness._"
> ...





=======================================

For which the subscriber _BecauseIKnow_ serves up some pussy negative-rep and the following commentary...

"_Fucking dumb cocksucker I'm trying to imagine how it would be for you in a debate in a college course. LOL! You're utter fail. Damn. What a horrible education you received._"

A little verklempt that I don't play by your rules, and that you can't make any headway against me, my little butt-floss?

And, as an extra-added bonus... looks like I hit a _nerve_ with _that_ post, eh, junior?

Tells me that I'm on the right track after all - to get such a behind-the-scenes rise out of you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Thanks for the marvelous reinforcing feedback.

Much obliged.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 10, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD1na_Xlk_4]32 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> 32 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube


Medicate 'em.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 11, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again with the territorial issues.  You must not believe your own IHL Link.
> 
> ...



In all of your long, verbose posts you have never explained how the Palestinians became exempt from the international laws that apply to everyone else.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> In all of your long, verbose posts you have never explained how the Palestinians became exempt from the international laws that apply to everyone else.


That's simple - they mean really nothing to palistanians, of course. But let palistanians despair not! - no real-world refugee has the luxury of having a custom-made premium-service UN agency, the UNRWA, getting by with the discount UNHCR instead.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> 32 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube


Tinnie, do you have to stay on duty for Hamas all the time?  Don't they let you go to bed at a reasonable time once in a while?


----------



## Roudy (Oct 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


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


Good excuse.  Evolved to what?  Irrelevant boring posts?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 11, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > 32 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube
> ...



I live in another time zone.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 11, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> It is sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.





But...um...there is no sovereign state of Palestine...so...


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 11, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Beachboy said:
> ...



Speaking as a member of my high school and college debate teams, I can assure you that you are correct.    I can count the number of fact/links I have seen from the Muslim Herd   at USMB on one hand.  They can verify nothing they say.  Of course  those  of us who actually read books and news magazines know that  Muslims are  trying to defend the indefensible, so name-calling and  distraction are  all they have.

Are you frustrated?  Of course you are.  So am I.  Posting against the   stupidity of barbarians is a waste of time.  The only thing Muslim   animals understand is bomb, bomb, bomb.  The time for talk is over.






One would think that after the centuries of Muslims being barbarians they would have 
evolved, but they haven't.  Same old ignorant barbarians with no growth between their ears.  
They vomit the Jihad the Qur'an tells them, avoiding original thought.​


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 11, 2013)

Bitchboy is up to his old tricks; pointlessly consuming bandwidth to add idiotic pics to his idiotic posts.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 11, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


That's why we can figure out that you are even on duty around midnight for your beloved Hamas.  I hope that Hamas is getting you upgrades for that magic computer which really isn't there.  I am sure they don't want you to miss any of their notices and orders.  Gee, at times I wonder if Tinnie is actually posting from Gaza.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



And you post this at 11:16 PM.

Who do you work for?


----------



## Roudy (Oct 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


I'd say you live on a different planet. Where up is down, and good is bad.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2013)

Roudy said:


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



Damn, how did you find out?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


10:16PM CDT and I work for AARP, another Zionist conspiracy organization.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 12, 2013)

_et al,_

Original Topic:  Arabs get back West Bank land!!!

*(QUESTION)*

So what have we heard on the actual negotiations from the talks?

v/r
R


----------



## Roudy (Oct 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Original Topic:  Arabs get back West Bank land!!!
> 
> ...


They've been talking up to Oct 9 and have said nothing has been accomplished.
 Maybe they should have chaperones to oversee their bar hopping and whore chasing and make them have a curfew. That way they would have time to talk. And I am dead serious.


Israelis, Palestinians 'up the tempo' of peace negotiations - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Just like *everyone* in the friggin world has been predicting.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


I hope you don't mind me making a prediction, Tinnie.  I don't think that most of your brethren will ever become tolerant that they will be able to accept people who are not Muslims and even Muslims of different sects.  I think the killings will constantly go on whether you think this world is "frigging" or not.   Instead of obsessing over Israel,(a postage-stamp sized land) the Islamic world should be concentrating on at least healing the schism which exists between the Shiites and the Sunnis.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> "..._Instead of obsessing over Israel,(a postage-stamp sized land)_..."


Honestly...

They've got all that land... the lion's share of what exists between the Atlantic coast of Africa and Indonesia... and they obsess and piss and moan and fight wars over a sand-flea like Israel-Palestine... now there's good value for the money, eh? Not.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Instead of obsessing over Israel,(a postage-stamp sized land)_..."
> ...



All what land?

They don't have their homeland because of the occupation


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Oct 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



They mean that the Arab nation, as a whole, have 22 countries already.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 12, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



And we have 50 states. Why don't we just throw everyone out of New Jersey and give it to Israel. I mean, look at how many other states they have.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



*Oh, you are breaking my heart!*






*Islam and violence*

                                              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Perception of Islam*

*Western perceptions*

 Sutton and Vertigans describe Western views of Islam as based on a  stereotype of it as an inherently violent religion, characterizing it as  a 'religion of the sword'. They characterize the image of Islam in the  Western world as "dominated by conflict, aggression, 'fundamentalism',  and global-scale violent terrorism."[1]
 Juan Eduardo Campo writes that, "Europeans (have) viewed Islam in  various ways: sometimes as a backward, violent religion; sometimes as an  Arabian Nights fantasy; and sometimes as a complex and changing product  of history and social life."[2]  Robert Gleave writes that, "at the centre of popular conceptions of  Islam as a violent religion are the punishments carried out by regimes  hoping to bolster both their domestic and international Islamic  credentials."[3]
 The 9/11 attack on the US and other[_when?_]  attacks since then associated with people who follow the Islamic faith,  have led many non-Muslims to indict Islam as a violent religion.[4]  According to Corrigan and Hudson, "some conservative Christian leaders  (have) complained that Islam (is) incompatible with what they believed  to be a Christian America."[5] Examples of Christian leaders who have expressed such sentiments include Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.[6] According to a survey conducted by a research group affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, two out of three Protestant pastors believe Islam is a "dangerous" religion.[7]
*
Islamic views on violence*

 Mark Juergensmeyer describes the teachings of Islam as ambiguous  about violence. He asserts that, like all religions, Islam occasionally  allows for force while stressing that the main spiritual goal is one of  nonviolence and peace.[9]  Hood, Hill and Spika write that "(a)lthough it would be a mistake to  think that Islam is inherently a violent religion, it would be equally  inappropriate to fail to understand the conditions under which believers  might feel justified in acting violently against those whom their  tradition feels should be opposed."[10]
 Similarly, Chandra Muzaffar asserts that, "(t)he Quranic exposition  on resisting aggression, oppression and injustice lays down the  parameters within which fighting or the use of violence is legitimate.  What this means is that one can use the Quran as the criterion for when  violence is legitimate and when it is not."[11]


*Qur'an*

 Main article: Qur'an and violence
 The Qur'an's teachings on matters of war and peace have become topics  of heated discussion in recent years. On the one hand, some critics  claim that certain verses of the Qur'an sanction military action against  unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after.  The Qur'an says, "Fight in the name of your religion with those who  fight against you."[12] On the other hand, other scholars argue that such verses of the Qur'an are interpreted out of context,[13][14] and argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Qur'an prohibits aggression,[15][16][17] and allows fighting only in self-defense.[18][19]
*Jihad*

 Main article: Jihad
_Jihad_, an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word _jih&#257;d_ translates as "struggle". _Jihad_ appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah _(al-jihad fi sabil Allah)_".[20][21][22]
 Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[23] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
 There is controversy regarding the extent of correlation between _jihad_ and violence, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[24]
 Middle East historian Bernard Lewis  argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians,  jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the  obligation of jihad in a military sense."[25] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[26] Although some Islamic scholars have different perspectives on the implementation of Jihad,  there is strong consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will  always include armed struggle against what they see as persecution and  oppression.[27][28]
*
Qur'anic verses in favor of violence*

 Qur'an that claims it is the "clear truth and the best explanation"[Quran 25:33], a revelation that was sent down "to make everything clear"[Quran 16:89] and the eternal word of Allah[Quran 56:80], commands its adherents in chapter no. 47,

 Quran in chapter 9 says,"Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun _(polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah)_, with whom you made a treaty.[1]
So travel freely (O Mushrikun) for four months (as you will)  throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the  Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.[2]

 And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the  greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah  the 12th month of Islamic  calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun and  so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for  you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the  Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (to Muhammad) of a painful  torment to those who disbelieve.[3]

 Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who  have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone  against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term.  Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious  see V.2:2).[4]

 Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of  the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you  find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each  and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat  (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily,  Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[5]

 And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans,  disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant  him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Quran), and  then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men  who know not.[6]"
 Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:1-6​"O you who believe (in Allah's Oneness and in His  Messenger (Muhammad)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans,  idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of  Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near  Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty,  Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is  All-Knowing, All-Wise. [28] Fight against those who
 (1) believe not in Allah,(2) nor in the Last Day,(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger(4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam)  among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay  the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [29] And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians  say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths.  They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on  them, how they are deluded away from the truth! [30]"
 Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:28-30​Quran chapter 8 says,"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels,  "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will  cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike  them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."[12]
This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger. And  whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah  is Severe in punishment.[13]"
 Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 8:12-13​"Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease  (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return  (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have  already preceded (as a warning).[38]
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism:  i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will  all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease  (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of  what they do.[39]"
 Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 8:38-39​In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir, one of the most well-renown Islamic scholars, explains the verses further:"Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:
(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the  opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah,  Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

 Allah's statement:
(...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah  (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above  all other religions.' It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa  Al-Ash`ari said: "The Prophet was asked, `O Allah's Messenger! A man  fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them  fights in the cause of Allah' The Prophet said:
(He who fights so that Allah's Word is superior, then he fights in  Allah's cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:
 (I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim,  `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then  he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law,  and their account will be with Allah.)"
 Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah​*Scholars' comment in favor of Jihad*

Imam Al-Suyuti (c. 1445-1505 AD) was a famous Egyptian writer, religious scholar, juristic expert and teacher wrote:"Fight those who don't believe in God nor in the  Last Day [Unless they believe in the Prophet God bless him and grant him  peace] nor hold what is forbidden that which God and His emissary have  forbidden [e.g., wine] nor embrace the true faith [which is firm, and  abrogates other faiths, i.e., the Islamic religion] from among [for  distinguishing] those who were given the Book [i.e., the Jews and  Christians] unless they give the head-tax [i.e., the annual taxes  imposed on them] (/'an yadin/) humbly submissive, and obedient to  Islam's rule."
 Suyuti, _Durr al-Manthur_ (Beirut Edition), vol. 3, p. 228​About Jihad, leader of the Afghan Jihad, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam wrote:"Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types:  Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory) ...  [and] Defensive Jihad. This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and  it is Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation on Muslim individuals], a  compulsory duty upon all ... ...Where the Kuffar [infidels] are not  gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya  [religious obligation on Muslim society] with the minimum requirement of  appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at  least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the  Imam (Caliph) to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of  war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the  Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is  in sin.- And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for  maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of  religion have also said: " Jihad is Daw'ah [Islamic preaching] with a  force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities,  until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."
 A. Y. Azzam, Offensive Jihad Vs. Defensive Jihad​Shaykh A&#7717;mad Sirhind&#299; (d. 1624) was an Islamic scholar and a  prominent Sufi. He is regarded as having rejuvenated Islam, due to which  he is commonly called "Mujadid Alf Thani", meaning "revival of the  second millennium". He wrote,"Shariat can be fostered through the sword. Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is  possible only at the expense of the other and co-existences between  these two contradictory faiths in unthinkable.
 The honor of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who  respects kafirs, dishonors the Muslims. To respect them does not merely  mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honor in any assembly,  but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations  to them. They should be kept at an arm's length like dogs. ... If some  worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a  minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking  them into confidence. The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is  better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should  be established with the kafirs.
 The real purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to  such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able  to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain  terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and  to uphold the honor and might of Islam. . . .
 Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam"
 A. Sirhindi, Excerpted from Saiyid  Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the  Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra University,  Balkrishna Book Co., 1965), pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh  Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity (Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74.​*Hadiths about Jihad*Narrated Anas bin Malik:
 Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till  they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they  say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we  slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we  will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be  with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O  Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He  replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah',  faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our  slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and  obligations as other Muslims have."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:8:387 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:24 see also Sahih Muslim, 1:30,Sahih Muslim, 1:31,Sahih Muslim, 1:32,Sahih Muslim, 1:33,Sahih Muslim, 1:34​On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. clans) the Prophet said, (After this  battle) we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not  come to attack us."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:435 see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4294​Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of  a Mujahid in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives  in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah  guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if  he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with  rewards and war booty."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:46 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4646​Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds  good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this  world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it,  except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would  like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)."
 Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in  Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the  world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or  lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it.  And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she  would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and  pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever  is in it."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:53 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:50, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:54​It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the  Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did  not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or  determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite. 'Abdullah b.  Mubarak said: We think the hadith pertained to the time of the Messenger  of Allah (may peace be upon him)
 Sahih Muslim, 20:4696 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4631, Sahih Muslim, 20:4634, Sahih Muslim, 20:4635​A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor)  came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or  embrace Islam first? "The Prophet said, "Embrace Islam first and then  fight." So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, A  Little work, but a great reward. "(He did very little (after embracing  Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance)."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:63 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4639​Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:73 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:72​Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Somebody asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Who  is the best among the people?" Allah's Apostle replied "A believer who  strives his utmost in Allah's Cause with his life and property." They  asked, "Who is next?" He replied, "A believer who stays in one of the  mountain paths worshipping Allah and leaving the people secure from his  mischief."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:45 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4652,Sahih Muslim, 20:4653​Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights  for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing  off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who  fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in  Allah's Cause."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:65 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:48​Narrated Abu Huraira: A man came to Allah's Apostle and said,  "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied,  "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim  fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers  without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But  who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter)  is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout  (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:44 see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4315, Sahih Muslim, 19:4314​Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: "Allah's Apostle said, "A time will come  upon the people, when a group of people will wage a holy war and it  will be said, 'Is there amongst you anyone who has accompanied Allah's  Apostle?' They will say, 'Yes.' And so victory will be bestowed on them.  Then a time will come upon the people when a group of people will wage a  holy war, and it will be said, "Is there amongst you a none who has  accompanied the companions of Allah's Apostle?' They will say, 'Yes.'  And so victory will be bestowed on them. Then a time will come upon the  people when a group of people will wage a holy war, and it will be said,  "Is there amongst you anyone who has been in the company of the  companions of the companions of Allah's Apostle ?' They will say, 'Yes.'  And victory will be bestowed on them."
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:57:1 see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6904,Sahih Muslim, 20:4717,Sahih Muslim, 20:4712​It has been narrated on the authority of Zaid b. Kbalid al-Juhani  that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Anybody who  equips a warrior (going to fight) in the way of Allah (is like one who  actually) fights. And anybody who looks well after his family in his  absence (is also like one who actually) fights.
 Sahih Muslim, 20:4668 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4669​It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Ishaq, that he heard  Bara' talking about the Qur'anic verse:" Those who sit (at home) from  among the believers and those who go out for Jihad in the way of Allah  are not aqual" (iv. 95). (He said that) the Messenger of Allah (may  peace be upon him) ordered Zaid (to write the verse). He brought a  shoulder-blade (of a slaughtered camel) and inscribed it (the verse)  thereon. The son of Umm Maktum complained of his blindness to the Holy  Prophet (may peace be upon him). (At this) descended the revelation:"  Those of the believers who sit (at home) without any trouble (illness,  incapacity, disability)" (iv. 95). The tradition has been handed down  through two other chains of transmitters.
​


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 12, 2013)

 Sahih Muslim, 20:4676 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4677​ *Domestic violence*

 Main article: Islam and domestic violence
 The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed. These ideas are somewhat justified with reference to the Qur'an, in one Surah, An-Nisa, 34,  which discusses forms of beating in certain circumstances. The passage  reads, "Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the  bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they  spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what  God would have them guard in the husbands absence. If you fear  high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God],  then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you,  you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great." Some  of the scholars allowing "beating" stress that it is a last resort,  discountenanced, and must be done lightly so much so not to cause pain  or injury.[29] Whether this fully justifies striking women remains controversial.
*
Modern violence*


 According to Islamic scholar Khaleel Mohammed,  throughout the world, Muslim intellectuals are punished for criticizing  various aspects of traditional and contemporary Islam, citing the case  of Muhammad Sa'id al-'Ashmawi, who is being held in Egypt under house arrest for his own protection; Abdel Karim Soroush who was beaten in Iran for raising the voice of inquiry, and Mahmoud Tahawho was killed in Sudan. Rifat Hassan, Fatima Mernissi, Abdallah an-Na'im, Mohammed Arkoun, and Amina Wadud were all vilified by the imams for asking Muslims to use their intellect.[30]
 Other examples:


Hashem Aghajari,  an Iranian university professor, was initially sentenced to death  because of a speech that criticized some of the present Islamic  practices in Iran being in contradiction with the original practices and  ideology of Islam, and particularly for stating that Muslims were not  "monkeys" and "should not blindly follow" the clerics. The sentence was  later commuted to three years in jail, and he was released in 2004 after  serving two years of that sentence.[31][32][33]
 

Christoph Luxenberg feels compelled to work under a pseudonym to protect himself because of fears that a new book on the origins of the Qur'an,[34][35] may make him a target for violence.[36][37] he goes/went by this assumed name in order to protect himself.[38]
 

In recent times fatwas calling for execution have been issued against novelist Salman Rushdie and activist Taslima Nasreen for pejorative comments on Islam.[39]
On 2 November 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated by Dutch-born Mohammed Bouyeri for producing the 10-minute film _Submission_ critical of the abusive treatment of women by Muslims. A letter threatening the author of the screenplay, Ayaan Hirsi Ali,  was pinned to his body by a knife. Hirsi Ali entered into hiding  immediately following the assassination, and now is protected by  bodyguards.[40]
 

On 30 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published editorial cartoons,  many of which caricatured the Islamic prophet Mohammed. The publication  was intended to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam  and self-censorship;[41]  objectives which manifested themselves in the public outcry from Muslim  communities within Denmark and the subsequent apology by the paper.  However, the controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons  were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries.  This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated  into violence, including setting fire to the Norwegian and Danish  Embassies in Syria, and the storming of European buildings and  desecration of the Danish and German flags in Gaza City.[42] Globally, at least 139 people were killed and 823 injured.[43]
 

On 19 September 2006 French writer and philosophy teacher Robert Redeker wrote an editorial for _Le Figaro_,  a French conservative newspaper, in which he attacked Islam and  Muhammad, writing: "Pitiless war leader, pillager, butcher of Jews and  polygamous, this is how Mohammed is revealed by the Qur'an." He received  death threats and went into hiding.[44]  The teacher was forced into hiding after describing the Qu'ran as a  "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ...  exalts violence and hate."[45]
 

On 4 August 2007, Ehsan Jami was attacked in his hometown of Voorburg, Netherlands by three men. The attack is widely believed to be linked to his activities for the Central Committee for Ex-Muslims.  The national anti-terrorism coordinator's office, the public  prosecution department and the police decided during a meeting on 6  August that "additional measures" were necessary for the protection of  Jami, who subsequently received extra security.[46]
 "Hatred towards people who follow other religions such as Jews and  Christians, as well as Hindus and other polytheists, are a part of the  teachings of the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an."[47]
*
Ayatollah*

 "Perhaps the most resounding call to jihad in modern times occurred on 21 January 1979," suggest authors, as the Ayatollah Khomeini announced a Jihad against the US. "The people have absolute confidence in their victory in this holy war (jihad-e moqaddas)," said the Islamic icon.[48]
Ayatollah Khomeini's "Radical Islamic Revolution executed and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of Radical Islam."[49]
Iran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini, categorized the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war as a 'Holy war'.[50] "Khomeini's call to jihad incited thousands of Iranian teenagers to volunteer for martyrdom missions."[48] The Basiji movement 'created' child and adult sacrifice as "holy soldiers,"[51] Blessed by Iranian mullahs' regime.[52]
 The Basiji ideology enjoys a revival under Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[51] who is a member.[53]  The movement has a nominal strength of 12.6 million, and has been  present in schools since it was first created in 1979 by the Ayatollah.[54] Basijis were used in crackdowns in 1999, in 2003[55] and in the brutality of 2009 on protesters in Iran.[56]
 The group demands in training intense Quran  studies, it calls for "Basij Ethics and Etiquette" and "Major Islamic  Commandments." The Basijis have been known to act in defending a strict  Islamic conduct.[57] and enforcing Sharia law.[58] often "merging" with Ansar-e Hezbollah men in enforcing Sharia law.[55] In one example, Human rights  activists charged that Basiji Islamic militiamen have raped and  murdered 26 year old Elnaz Babazadeh for wearing an improper dress.[59]
 On 19 August 1979 the Ayatollah declared a jihad against the Kurds in Iran. "Once jihad is declared, all males over 15 must join the fight, the enemy's property is open to confiscation."[60]
 "Ayatollah Khomeini played on the messianic overtones of this belief  during the Iranian revolution." The ideology of "Twelver" in Shiite  Islam (return of the 12th Imam  belief) was invoked by many who  believed that the Ayatollah will "return" as their Mahdi (Islamic Messiah). Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad  refocuses this belief of the Mahdi's return by public statements and  various symbolic actions, Iraq's Shiite al-Sadr's army is called the Mahdi army.[61]
*
Mujahedin*

 In 1979 Afghanistan, local Muslim rebels began fighting the Soviets army, calling themselves Mujahideen, they used guerrilla war.[62]
 Author of the book _Holy war_ Wilhelm Dietl accounted how one Mujahed fighter told him en route to an armed attack in Herat: "We love to kill Russians and to be killed."[63]
*
Taliban*

 Some of the Taliban have fought against the Soviets in the 1980s. They battle to conquer the country.[64] Many Madrassas endorse Jihad in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.[65]
 In the 1980s, the _Afghan jihad_ had been financed by Saudi Arabia[66] as well as other countries including the United States of America.[_citation needed_]
*
Saddam Hussein*

Saddam Hussein warned of a jihad against the United States in 1991.[67]  In 2003, after the March 20 US, British led invasion of Iraq, Saddam  Hussein called for a holy war against "an aggression on the land of  Islam." (invoking the Quranic theme: "Fight them everywhere...")[68]  The statement accused the coalition forces of waging a war against  Islam. His information Minister conlcuding: "Therefore, jihad is a duty  in confronting them... Those who are martyred will be rewarded in  heaven. Seize the opportunity, my brothers."[69]
*
Laskar Jihad*

 The paramilitary organisation Laskar Jihad called "to wage a jihad or holy war" into Indonesia's Moluccan islands, and carried out anti-Christian attacks in Sulawesi,[70] the same group was involved in the 1999 violence against Christians and Chinese[71] in East Timor.[72] It has been categorized as "Indonesia's Dirty Little Holy War Holy Terror."[70]
*
Hezbollah*

Hezbollah's spiritual guidance, Sheik Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah, who witnessing journalist says was behind the hostage crisis in Lebanon in the 1980s,[73] said: "We see ourselves as _mujihadeen_ who fight a Holy War." Justifying bombings, kidnapping, murder.[74]
 However British journalist Robert Fisk disputes these claims about Fadlallh:The Americans put it about that he had blessed the suicide bomber who  struck the US marine base in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 service  personnel. Fadlallah always denied this to me and I believe him. Suicide  bombers, however insane we regard them, don't need to be blessed; they  think they are doing God's duty without any help from a marja like  Fadlallah.​[75]
*
Omar al-Bashir*

 "In the present conflict in Darfur, jihad is usually interpreted as holy war by the government in Khartoum."[76] The Sudanese National Islamic Front declared in 1992 a _jihad,_ or holy war, against all in the Nuba Mountains who supported the SPLA.[77][78]
Sudan's leader Omar Al-Bashir, in 1997 "declared a jihad (holy war) against" Ethiopia.[79] Accused of genocide he threatened in 2007 "to mount a jihad against United Nations peacekeepers."[80]
*
Wahabbists*

 The Whabbists have a long history of fundamentalism and jihad,  declaring holy wars on others, to force them into accepting their  purified version of Islam[81]
 In 2010, a 'Glut of fatwas spurred Saudi king to impose curbs,' Saudi  political analyst explaining: "If you endorse jihad, it means you are  searching for a war with the rest of the world."[82]
 Some militant Islamic movements cite Saudi Wahhabi clerics to justify violence.[83]
 Saudi Grand Mufti Ibn Baz repudiated violence. He stated:From that which is known to everyone who has the slightest bit of  common sense is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the  like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are  far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the  innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allaah.​[84]
*
Terrorism*

 Main article: Islam and terrorism
*Islamic terrorism* is terrorism[85] committed by Islamists, and aimed at achieving varying political ends[86] and the advancement of Islamist goals; for example, Osama bin Laden's stated goal of ending American military presence in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula,[87][87] overthrowing Arab regimes he considers corrupt and insufficiently religious,[87] and stopping American support for Israel.[88] Bombing in London 7/7 are said to be in retaliation for UK's support in the war in Iraq that began in 2003, though it can't be linked as a motive for Islamic terror plots on London, December, 2001.[89][90] The Islamic terrorism  attack in Madrid were "explained" as "inspired by al-Qaeda's call to  punish Spain's government for supporting the Iraq war," another motive  was given that Spain holds a strong appeal to Islamic militants because  the southern region of Andalucia was under Muslim control for almost 800  years, and "Al-Qaeda has called on jihadists to reconquer Spain as part  of a broader Muslim caliphate, or kingdom under Islamic rule."[91][92]
 At the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Islamic terrorists were told by their handlers in Pakistan "that the lives of Jews were worth 50 times those of non-Jews."[93]
 The Qur'an: (8:12): "...cast terror in their hearts and strike upon their necks."[94] The _commanded to terrorize the disbelievers_ have been cited in motivation of Jihadi terror.[95][96][97][98]
 A Jihadi cleric:"Another aim and objective of jihad is to drive terror in the hearts  of the [infidels]. To terrorize them. Did you know that we were  commanded in the Qur'an with terrorism? ...Allah said, and prepare for  them to the best of your ability with power, and with horses of war. To  drive terror in the hearts of my enemies, Allah's enemies, and your  enemies. And other enemies which you don't know, only Allah knows  them... So we were commanded to drive terror into the hearts of the  [infidels], to prepare for them with the best of our abilities with  power. Then the Prophet said, nay, the power is your ability to shoot.  The power which you are commanded with here, is your ability to shoot.  Another aim and objective of jihad is to kill the [infidels], to lessen  the population of the [infidels]... it is not right for a Prophet to  have captives until he makes the Earth warm with blood... so, you should  always seek to lessen the population of the [infidels]."[99]​Observers have also argued that the attacks are aimed at propagating Islamic culture, society and values in opposition to perceived political, imperialistic, and/or cultural influences of non-Muslims, and the Western world in particular.[100][101]
 There are also historical dimensions to the phenomenon, and the history of Western influence and control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire  in 1918, is a common stated reason used within some terrorist groups to  justify and explain its use of violence as resistive and retributive  against western influences.
*
World domination*

 The strive to an 'Islamic Caliphate.' Caliph is translated from the Arabic *Khalifa* (&#1582;&#1604;&#1610;&#1601;&#1577; &#7830;al&#299;fä) meaning "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant". It is used in the Qur'an to establish Adam's role as representative of Allah on earth. Kalifa is also used to describe the belief that man's role, in his real nature, is as khalifa or viceroy to Allah.[102] The word is also most commonly used for the Islamic leader of the Ummah; starting with Muhammad and his line of successors.
 Indeed, domination is the ultimate goal of jihadists.[103][104] Al-Qaeda revealed its grand plan towards an Islamic caliphate,[105] - global domination.[106] Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has released a statement in which it explains the reasons for its terror campaign:"We are not fighting to chase out the occupier or to save national  unity and keep the borders outlined by the infidels intact," [...] "We  are fighting because it is a religious duty to do it, just as it is a  duty to take the Sharia [Islamic law] to the government and create an  Islamic state."[107]​"Al-Qaeda has called on jihadists to reconquer Spain as part of a broader Muslim caliphate, or kingdom under Islamic rule."[91] Explaining why even Hamas has an eye on Spain.[92] In the early 1990s, the GIA  Algerian Armed Islamist Group, which is "well known for its radical  positions and the barbaric violence of its operations, announced the  restoration of the caliphate and the appointment of a caliph."[108] With Palestinian Islamic party Hamas victory in the 2007 election, a mass gathering followed with Hamas' spokesman calling for a Caliphate.[109] The official said Hamas seeks to create an "Islamic caliphate" in the land.[110][111]

*How stupid does the Muslim Herd think we are?*

* We can read an encyclopedia.  *

* The conclusions are obvious.*​


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


They already have New Jersey. And New York. And Florida. That's enough already.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



New graphic, just in!




​


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...








Given all the land dominated by Islam, they (Muslims) obsess and piss and moan...


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2013)

Beachboy said:


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


*"Solution To Islam"*


----------



## Hollie (Oct 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Sure they do. The Jews have their homeland previously occupied by Arab beggars and squatters.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 13, 2013)

Hollie said:


> "..._The Jews have their homeland previously occupied by Arab beggars and squatters._"


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> All what land? They don't have their homeland because of the occupation


It's palistanian occupational occupation, of course.


P F Tinmore said:


> What do you mean losing side? The Palestinians never lost anything.


----------



## pbel (Oct 13, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Only a Right wing wack job would believe that the un-armed Palestinians disappearance would make Israel secure, to wit Iranians nukes...of course a zealot Zionist will think that their nukes will prevent Israel's disappearance by the MAD policy.

Think again, there are suicide bombers everywhere within the Jihadist movement, and the masses support that prevailing ideology in the Arab world and elsewhere...Nuclear Pakistan, the radical Taliban State is a car bomb away from Regime Change. They would gladly nuke Israel and let Allah sort it out. According to some publications Pakistanis right and left hate Israel more than India according to their Polls.


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 13, 2013)

pbel said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...



Only a Muslim moron would call me a conservative.  It is that damn third   world education Muslims have that does not take Muslims that far  enough  into original thought.  Having been a Democrat and a Republican I  am an  Independent.  Muslims make the mistake of thinking the lefties,   liberals, and Democrats are on their side based upon human rights.   They  are wrong,  Democrats and Republicans see Muslims as violent,   unevolved, murdering, barbarians that must be herded by Western culture.

Here is ultra, ultra, leftie Bill Maher sharing his views on Muslims.    Trust me, Republicans and the Tea Party will applaud Bill Maher on this   interview. 

No one is buying that a murderous, terrorist, Muslim animals have a real religion.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02-WhSCWnZM"]Bill Maher Puts Muslim Apologist on Blast - 4.19.13 - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 13, 2013)

Some of the staunchest supporters of Palestine are Palestinian Christians.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Some of the staunchest supporters of Palestine are Palestinian Christians.


Do you think Hamas can give you a little time off to work with this group?  It probably will be a dangerous job, but you can do it, Tinnie, and think of all the practice you will get speaking Arabic to potential converts.

Project Isa - FEBC


----------



## Roudy (Oct 14, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Some of the staunchest supporters of Palestine are Palestinian Christians.


Some of the staunchest supporters of Palestine are KKK and Neo Nazi Christians.  Wow.  We didn't know that.  

While we're at it, let us know who you think the Christian world, would prefer be in charge of the holy sites?  Arabs who keep blowing up churches and massacring Christians, or Jews who are the best hosts and caretakers?


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 14, 2013)

A day without a Muslim response.

Once again, Hossfly, Kondor3, Roudy, ForeverYoung436 and Hollie take the trophies for this win over Muslims!
























Not on our watch!  ​


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Oct 14, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Beachboy said:
> ...



Maher really exposes Islam in this video.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2013)

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the staunchest supporters of Palestine are Palestinian Christians.
> ...



In Palestine the Christians and Muslims are on the same side being attacked by the Jews.

Let's hear it for the Palestinian Christians.
Edward Said
Hanan Ashrawi
Ghada Karmi
Noura Erakat
Huwaida Arraf
Rafeef Ziadah


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2013)

That's nice. That and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.


----------



## toastman (Oct 15, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Christians being attacked by Jews ?? lol Your poor feeble mind is contaminated with Palestinian propaganda. 

Also, Palestine doesn't mean nothing really. You must be talking about Palestinian Territories


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 15, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> That's nice. That and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.


You must be using GroupOn to get that $2.00 Starbucks. It's $5.00 everywhere I've been.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 15, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Yeah right, if it weren't for Israel the Palestinian Muslims would slaughter every Christian in sight.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 15, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > That's nice. That and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
> ...


And that doesn't even even include the tip.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2013)

Roudy said:


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



Link?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Hmmm... a regular-sized cup of coffee?... really?... I probably go there myself once every 3-4 months, at the drive-thru, and never pay attention to prices (obviously)...

But I seem to recall $1.85 plus tax for a regular-sized plain coffee, when passing thru one a few miles northeast of Joliet, Illinois, back in August.

Mebbe I should have paid closer attention.

OK.

My bad.

Revised.

"_That and $5.00 will buy you a cup of Starbucks_".

All fixed.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 15, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Link for what?  Muslims are murdering and killing Christians all over the world.  Jews aren't the only ones they are trying to kill.  Palestinian animal  invaders in Lebanon were busy killing every Christian in sight, until Israel stepped in to even out the playing field.  

*Palestinians Killed 40,000 Christians In Lebanon*

Arafat's Massacre of Damour
by Joseph Hobeika 
Read about Arafat
PLO massacres in Lebanon
Organized by Professor M. Kahl

Do you not remember Damour Lebanon. Let me remind you. Arafat and the PLO plunged Lebanon into "massacres, rape, mutilation, rampages of looting and killings. Out of a population of 3.2 million, some 40,000 or more people had been killed, 100,000 wounded, 5,000 permanently maimed

In January of 1976, the destruction of Damour, a town of some 25,000 was completed by the PLO within two weeks. "The priest of Damour, Father Mansour Labaky desperately trying to save people of the town telephoned Kamal Jumblat [one of the Lebanese leaders], in whose parliamentary constituency Damour lay. 'Father, Jumblat said, 'I can do nothing for you, because it depends on Yasser Arafat' " . All efforts were useless. In the morning following the first night of invasion, when more than fifty people were massacred, Father Labaky "despite the shelling managed to get to the one house, to bring out some corpses. An entire family had been killed, the Canan family, four children all dead, and the mother, the father, and the grandfather. The mother was still hugging one of the children. And she was pregnant

The eyes of the children were gone and their limbs were cut off. No legs and no arms" (123). In total, 582 people were massacred in the storming of Damour. Father Labaky went with the Red Cross to bury them. "Many of the bodies had been dismembered, so they had to count the heads to number the dead. Three of the men they found had had their genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths"

Azmi Zrayir, the PLO Member, an organizer of the terrorist attack in March, 1975 on the Savoy Hotel in Tel Aviv in which seven people were killed and eleven wounded, was remembered in Lebanon as "a thief, a murderer, a rapist and a torturer." Being a PLO headquarters commander in Tyre, "he formed a football team into which he conscripted teenage children. The players were forced to gratify Zrayir's sexual appetites. He debauched both girls and boys. At least one child who defied him was shot dead" (144).

Arafat was ruthless not only with the Lebanese citizens but with the Palestinian Arabs too. In January, 1976 during the Christians' attack on Tall al Za'tar refugee camp the PLO tried to prevent the people in the camp from leaving. "Conditions within the camp became critical, with acute shortages of food and water, as bombardment continued day after day. The ideal of self sacrifice, imposed on the civilians by a leadership which itself took no risks, was never known to be the choice of the unhappy people themselves. And not all of the fighters who fell with their guns in their hands were cut down by the fire of the Christians. Some who tried to surrender or escape from the camp were shot in the back by their own comrades" (133). The high command in the PLO headquarters in West Beirut "not only refused to let the Palestinians leave the camp, or let the fighters surrender in order to save them all from hell, but insisted that the entire population, including the children, were to be sacrificed"


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2013)

Roudy said:


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



Do you have something that is not from an Israeli hate site?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2013)

Never mind the source...

Are the charges true?

Did Palestinians kill 40,000 Christians in Lebanon?


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 15, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> 
> the land was stolen in the 1970s.
> 
> ...



You have been asked four times to provide links to support anything you say.  You have not.  That washes away everything you said.  Your arguments are empty noise.


----------



## toastman (Oct 15, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Your proof that it is an Israeli hate site ??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 15, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> ...



The Associated Press report was linked.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 15, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Israel hate site?    Where did the Israel part of this come in?  Let's recap here...so you're denying that Palestinians invaded Lebanon and were the worst murderers of Lebanese Christians?  You are denying that the Massacre of Damour took place?    You can run all you want, but you can't hide from the truth.  

Sorry but you're outta luck on this one.  Claiming that Palestinians are tolerant of Christians is like claiming that the moon is made of Swiss cheese.

The world will never forget what Palestinians did to the Lebanese Christians!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwYo8kFZ0g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwYo8kFZ0g[/ame]


----------



## Roudy (Oct 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Never mind the source...
> 
> Are the charges true?
> 
> Did Palestinians kill 40,000 Christians in Lebanon?


They probably killed three times as much.  And maimed much more.  

Historical fact:  Palestinians invaded Lebanon and joined forces with Syria and Hezbollah to help their Muslim brethren massacre the Lebanese Christians.  They were infamous barbarians and the worst killers of the Lebanese Christians.  Eh, who knows, maybe in the process of killing every Lebanese Christian man woman and child, they could have stolen a portion of Lebanon and made a Palestine out of it?  They would have walked around calling themselves "The Indigenous Palestinian people who have lived in Lebanon since ancient times" <LOL>.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2013)

Roudy said:


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



That is only part of the story. Where is the rest of it?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Elucidate. And ask questions with a little meat in them.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



That is only part of the information and it is taken out of context.

That would classify the story as propaganda.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Let's have your version, no links, no quotes, no YouTube videos and no whiny BS. Your verson, in your words. Act like a grownup.


----------



## MHunterB (Oct 16, 2013)

If they're 'Palestinians' - what were they doing invading Lebanon in the first place?  How come it's OK for them to go into Lebanon and kill people - but somehow the Israelis were evil monsters for chasing the murderers of their civilians into Lebanon to catch them?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 16, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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


In the past 6-7 months of active posting here, I can probably count on the fingers of one hand, the number of times Tinny has sortied out into the wild, relying solely upon his own words and his own wits, to undertake any in-depth discussion on such topics.

It's an exaggeration, I'm sure, but you're on the right track with such an observation.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


What part is that?  Palestinians joined up with Muslims and led the slaughter of Christians in Lebanon. What business did the animals have doing that?  First you denied it happened and now you claim it is part of the story. Stop squirming.  

Palestinians were responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of Christians. There goes your myth of Palestinian tolerance towards Christians. 

What a cursed people you defend. Everywhere they go they spread hatred, murder, and mayhem.


----------



## toastman (Oct 16, 2013)

Roudy, you should know by now that Tinmore is a apologist for Palestinian criminals and jihadists. No matter what information you provide him concerning Palestinian terrorism, he will either deny it or justify it somehow


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> If they're 'Palestinians' - what were they doing invading Lebanon in the first place?  How come it's OK for them to go into Lebanon and kill people - but somehow the Israelis were evil monsters for chasing the murderers of their civilians into Lebanon to catch them?


----------



## toastman (Oct 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > If they're 'Palestinians' - what were they doing invading Lebanon in the first place?  How come it's OK for them to go into Lebanon and kill people - but somehow the Israelis were evil monsters for chasing the murderers of their civilians into Lebanon to catch them?



Excellent response !!


----------



## GHook93 (Oct 16, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> 
> the land was stolen in the 1970s.
> 
> ...



I love hypocrite like you claim to be a middle ground man, when your more biased then anyone. You hold an double standard when dealing towards Jews that you don't hold Arabs or anyone else to. A fucko like you thinks the Jews should make a deal that will destroy them!

Why not stand behind your real stance and quit being a coward!


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 16, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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


C'mon, Tinmore, you've had an ample amount of time to compose your version of the story yet the only post from you since my request shows you giggling like a sissy. Get with the program.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 16, 2013)

toastman said:


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


No doubt, Marg, Muslims laugh at the pictures of the dead Christian women and children in Damour who were killed by fellow Muslims.


----------



## MHunterB (Oct 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > If they're 'Palestinians' - what were they doing invading Lebanon in the first place?  How come it's OK for them to go into Lebanon and kill people - but somehow the Israelis were evil monsters for chasing the murderers of their civilians into Lebanon to catch them?



Sorry, Tinny - I can't hear what you're trying to say.  Please try again......


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 16, 2013)

MHunterB said:


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



The Palestinians were in Lebanon because Israel threw them out of Palestine.

You should know this already.


----------



## toastman (Oct 16, 2013)

Threw them out of where ?


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 16, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> ...



Nice post Roudy!  And as usual Hoffstra disappeared when confronted with your question.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Oh OK!  So assuming what you said is true.  THAT gives the Palestinians the right to go around massacring every Christian in site?  This does not compute Mr. Tinmore.  Why are you giving the Palestinians a pass to commit genocide?


----------



## Roudy (Oct 16, 2013)

Well at least we established that not only have Palestinians NOT been tolerant of Christians, but in fact they've tried to commit genocide on them.  

I'm glad we got that one out of the way.  Maybe now Mr. Tinmore will stop telling everybody how nice Palestinians are to Christians.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 16, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


This is how Palestinians express their peacefulness and tolerance towards others.  By MURDERING them.  It's a communication problem.


----------



## Roudy (Oct 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> Roudy, you should know by now that Tinmore is a apologist for Palestinian criminals and jihadists. No matter what information you provide him concerning Palestinian terrorism, he will either deny it or justify it somehow


Yes, it's never their fault, always someone else made them do it.  Look at those halos on top of their heads while they blow up little Jewish kids, isn't that cute?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 17, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Well at least we established that not only have Palestinians NOT been tolerant of Christians, but in fact they've tried to commit genocide on them.
> 
> I'm glad we got that one out of the way.  Maybe now Mr. Tinmore will stop telling everybody how nice Palestinians are to Christians.



We are only getting part of that story.

When are y'all going to put it in context?


----------



## Roudy (Oct 17, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Well at least we established that not only have Palestinians NOT been tolerant of Christians, but in fact they've tried to commit genocide on them.
> ...


What part is that, your claim that the Israelis "kicked them out" and they didn't actually "invade" Lebanon.  So because the Israelis "kicked" them out that means they get to slaughter all the native Christians of the land?  

God bless Israel with the savages it has to deal with.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 17, 2013)

Roudy said:


> "..._God bless Israel with the savages it has to deal with._"


Amen.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 17, 2013)

Kondor3, Roudy, _et al,_

Sometimes, you guys drive me crazy.



Kondor3 said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > "..._God bless Israel with the savages it has to deal with._"
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Just as the Allied Powers found it, in the best interest of humanity, necessary to protect and preserve the Jewish culture through the establishment of the Jewish National Home, --- so it is that we must find a way to protect and preserve the Palestinian culture.  Preferably we should consider something, besides a zoo cage.

While many would ascribe characteristics like cruel, uncivilized, barbarous and brutal to this culture; which has an established history of such activities, there must be a long term solution to connect the moral and behavior standards of the surrounding cultures that reject all forms of violence and terrorism and advocates the protection of human rights.  But this would be a major change to their humanitarian heritage; a Herculean task.  

What makes it so hard is that even the culture itself defines itself as Jihadist in nature and Fedayeen at heart; even today.  And they are very proud of being Jihadist and Fedayeen.  How do you change an half century long attitude that says:
_The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man women and child."_​
It is like trying to domesticate a Great White Shark; they contain in their population hungry predator psychopaths.  And they are quite proud of it.  


*THE PALESTINIAN:*  "No one has the right to condemn the resistance for any of the methods that it adopts, because it knows better than everyone else what is good for it and for its noble objectives."

*THE UNITED NATIONS:*  Nothing can justify terrorism  ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.

You can decide which is civilized and which is savage.  But the question becomes, how do we alter the mental paradigm such that the Palestinian comes to the same conclusion. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 17, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> In rare case, Palestinians reclaim settlement land
> 
> the land was stolen in the 1970s.
> 
> ...



You have been asked *five *times to provide links to support anything you  say.  You have not.  That washes away everything you said.  Your  arguments are empty noise.


----------



## toastman (Oct 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Kondor3, Roudy, _et al,_
> 
> Sometimes, you guys drive me crazy.
> 
> ...



What's with your opening statement ? Why do they drive you crazy ?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 17, 2013)

toastman, _et al,_

Yes, crazy.  



toastman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3, Roudy, _et al,_
> ...


*(LAUGHING)*

The psychiatrist asked the Palestinian a few questions, took some notes then sat thinking in silence for a few minutes with a puzzled look on his face.

Suddenly, the psychiatrist looked up with an expression of delight and said, "Um, I think your problem is low self-esteem. It is very common among losers."​
No insult intended.  But when I read some of these exchanges, I just start chuckling.  It's been that kind of day.

v/r
R


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> "..._But the question becomes, how do we alter the mental paradigm such that the Palestinian comes to the same conclusion_..."


I, for one, have never believed in such a possibility. My basis for that judgment is the Absolutism and Intransigence which dominates their mindset, the Death-Trip Fanaticism and Fascist Roots by which they organized decades ago and by which they sustain their Collective Mentality, and their extremist interpretation of a religious belief-system which is saturated with permissions and examples of engaging in war and committing acts of violence in their name of their vision of the godhead and in defense of their co-religionists, and the Intolerance inherent in that belief-system, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

I do not believe that the Collective Palestinian can be coaxed out of his collective delusion and detachment from reality and mental illness.

But that's just me.


----------



## docmauser1 (Oct 17, 2013)

pbel said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...


Since when has the un been arming palistanians?


----------



## Roudy (Oct 18, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Kondor3, Roudy, _et al,_
> 
> Sometimes, you guys drive me crazy.
> 
> ...


Why is this a surprise?  Muslims have been behaving like this for centuries. 

www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 18, 2013)

Roudy said:


> R


Why is this a surprise?  Muslims have been behaving like this for centuries. 

www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com[/QUOTE]

The funny thing to me about Muslims is you present them with three      separate links and a map showing their low intelligence quotient, and      then they are so stupid, they do not understand what facts are!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> toastman, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, crazy.
> 
> ...



Hey, Rocco. I read the comment (really great stuff) that Kondor3 made and I agree completely.

I dont want to start a debate over Christian or Judaic legal / social doctrines but wish to show that for better or for worse, those legal / social thoughts have tended to adapt with the times. In the case of Islam, however, Moslems are essentially legally obliged to make do with doctrines that are unchanged since the time of islams inventor. Hence, there are serious debates among (proceeding alphabetically and including but not limited to, Ayatollahs, Emirs, Imams, prayer leader, Sheiks, ) and particularly among Sunni _Death Cultists_, about subjects we would find ridiculous, such as whether sharia allows or forbids singing.

Music and Singing: A Detailed Fatwa

This legal stagnation has led to a situation in which Islamic law has become progressively more separated from the underlying social realities of the times. This is the unavoidable outcome of such strict conservatism. The growing distance and tension between Islamist legal thought and the ever-changing circumstances of the times is reflected in the self-destructive and regressive social climate that haunts the Islamist Middle East that is now obvious to even the most casual observers. That pathology has produced an extremist reaction. The 20th and 21st centuries provide the most lurid examples of these, but the roots of this extremism are actually in the 19th century, when modernity was more or less forced upon the Islamic world by Europe.

Not at all coincidentally, Wahabbism, the principle sect of Islam in todays Saudi Arabia, which was formally put forth in the 18th century, came into its own within the Arab world in the 19th. Assassinations of British officials in India by Wahabbi fanatics are attested to during this period, and the Wahabbi ibn Saud began his initial conquests of Arabia and founded his dynasty at the dawn of the 19th century, right as the Ottoman Empire began to formulate its modernizing Tanzimat reforms. Still throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, it would be fair to say that Wahabbism was mostly an obscure, though radical, sect practiced mostly by Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula.

In terms of the Arab world, that fact is still mostly true  Wahabbism itself is little more favored today in the Middle East than it was 50 or 100 years ago, even with the surge in popularity of Al Qaeda prior to the 2nd Iraq war. On the other hand, many of the goals and methods of Wahabbism, including the establishment of a worldwide caliphate and the justification of violence against infidels, are more accepted among Middle Easterners than they used to be. Though these ideas have always been a part of Islamic doctrine, they had mostly been abandoned as impracticable in the dominions of the Ottoman Empire and Persian monarchy in the 19th century. That such a radical return to the past is possible only highlights the extreme conservatism of Islamic law. In fact, the most prominent symbol of modern-day Islamism, the burqa, is only a product of the 1970s. In many ways, as Mark Steyn and others have pointed out, the reform of Islam has already taken place, and Wahabbism is it.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 19, 2013)

Hollie said:


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


I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Islam, 2013 - "Welcome to the 7th Century, AD.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 19, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



In Gaza: Celebrate Child Day with Farah who has been working very hard to make this festival a great success for the children of Gaza! What is her purpose? To give children a day of play, music and joy!

Gaza starts @ 33:40

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdsLf4n5Ug]36 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...




There's lots of fun stuff over at _fatwa central_

FatwaIslam.Com : Women Posting in Internet Discussions


_Women Posting in Internet Discussions_ 

[Q]: Some of the sisters write knowledge-based speech in some of the websites, and they refute some of the writers with regards to their statements. So what is you opinion concerning this?

[A]: I advise every Muslim woman, the Salafee women especially to not delve into this affair. Firstly: Due to what is in it from the wasting of time. Secondly: It exposes her to being the object of ridicule and amusement for the reckless ones and those with diseased hearts. And if she absolutely must do this, then she must suffice with listening to the knowledge-based lessons from those who are known for knowledge, practice of the Religion and excellence. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent her from spreading the statements and fataawaa of the noble Scholars so that her brothers and sisters may benefit from them. 

[Q]: What are the general rules for sisters speaking with brothers, or vice-versa on the internet? 

[A]: Where were you from our answer?! We advise with the abandonment of this affair! This affair of discussions, mutual exchanges, perceptions and sensations [(oh my... "sensations" -ed.)] as I have mentioned previously. Secondly, and this is what I add as an answer to your question, I say that many of those who have diseased hearts enter into the programmes of women with the names of women: Umm so and so!! Umm so and so!! Indeed, he names himself with the name of a woman! And their intended purpose is to enjoyment through harming the Muslim women. 


 Shaykh `Ubayd al-Jaabiree


----------



## Beachboy (Oct 19, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...



And this is how it goes.  Hoffstra never gets back to Roudy.  Hoffstra  never provides fact/links when asked directly.  Why is Hoffstra even  being addressed in this thread?


----------

