Palestine Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Palestinian detainee Nael al-Barghouti turns 62 today. Al-Barghouti is the longest-serving political prisoner in history as he was arrested by Israeli occupation forces in 1978!

73320866_2853316901354426_5077906492229681152_n.jpg

Even the Arab sources mention he was jailed for murdering an Israeli,
that you avoided mentioning this could either mean you just lie knowingly,
or that you conflate military operations with politics.

So which one is it?
 
Last edited:
The Palestinian detainee Nael al-Barghouti turns 62 today. Al-Barghouti is the longest-serving political prisoner in history as he was arrested by Israeli occupation forces in 1978!

73320866_2853316901354426_5077906492229681152_n.jpg

Even the Arab sources mention he was jailed for murdering an Israeli,
that you avoided mentioning this could either mean you just lie knowingly,
or that you conflate military operations with politics.

So which one is it?
Palestinians get busted for fighting against the illegal occupation.
 
The Palestinian detainee Nael al-Barghouti turns 62 today. Al-Barghouti is the longest-serving political prisoner in history as he was arrested by Israeli occupation forces in 1978!

73320866_2853316901354426_5077906492229681152_n.jpg

Even the Arab sources mention he was jailed for murdering an Israeli,
that you avoided mentioning this could either mean you just lie knowingly,
or that you conflate military operations with politics.

So which one is it?
Palestinians get busted for fighting against the illegal occupation.

But if you just acknowledged he was a fighter participating in military operation,
why intentionally lie about him being a political prisoner?

Were you duped by the Pali propaganda,
or chose to mislead on your own?
 
The Palestinian detainee Nael al-Barghouti turns 62 today. Al-Barghouti is the longest-serving political prisoner in history as he was arrested by Israeli occupation forces in 1978!

73320866_2853316901354426_5077906492229681152_n.jpg

Even the Arab sources mention he was jailed for murdering an Israeli,
that you avoided mentioning this could either mean you just lie knowingly,
or that you conflate military operations with politics.

So which one is it?
Palestinians get busted for fighting against the illegal occupation.

But if you just acknowledged he was a fighter participating in military operation,
why intentionally lie about him being a political prisoner?

Were you duped by the Pali propaganda,
or chose to mislead on your own?
Fighting against an illegal occupation is not illegal. He is a political prisoner.
 
The Palestinian detainee Nael al-Barghouti turns 62 today. Al-Barghouti is the longest-serving political prisoner in history as he was arrested by Israeli occupation forces in 1978!

73320866_2853316901354426_5077906492229681152_n.jpg

Even the Arab sources mention he was jailed for murdering an Israeli,
that you avoided mentioning this could either mean you just lie knowingly,
or that you conflate military operations with politics.

So which one is it?
Palestinians get busted for fighting against the illegal occupation.

But if you just acknowledged he was a fighter participating in military operation,
why intentionally lie about him being a political prisoner?

Were you duped by the Pali propaganda,
or chose to mislead on your own?
Fighting against an illegal occupation is not illegal. He is a political prisoner.

I was not referring to 'legal' or 'illegal' which is all a matter of opinion.
But rather you framing a military operation as political action.

What prevents then an occupation to be equated with mere political action?
 
Last edited:

If there is no danger,
why refuse the check and intentionally confront the army?

And why wasn't there actually any aid on the ship?
They didn't confront the army. The army attacked them.

Did they agree to a check, follow instruction,
or simply dismiss the warnings and proceeded straight towards the patrol?

And why was there no aid on the ship?
That was the passenger ship. Duh! :eusa_doh::eusa_doh::eusa_doh:
 
Samar al-Bou', 28, has re-opened her father's apiary 13 years after he was killed by an Israeli airstrike in the same place. Samar hopes to revive her father's dream and help her family financially.

72871221_2853282271357889_1892243065972719616_n.jpg
 

If there is no danger,
why refuse the check and intentionally confront the army?

And why wasn't there actually any aid on the ship?
They didn't confront the army. The army attacked them.

Did they agree to a check, follow instruction,
or simply dismiss the warnings and proceeded straight towards the patrol?

And why was there no aid on the ship?
That was the passenger ship. Duh! :eusa_doh::eusa_doh::eusa_doh:

I mean, didn't you see the footage where those hooded thugs were walking around with billy clubs, just waiting for the soldiers to drop down so they could be beaten over their heads? Are you getting paid for this nonsense or are you a just an idiotic tool for the Islamists?
 

If there is no danger,
why refuse the check and intentionally confront the army?

And why wasn't there actually any aid on the ship?
They didn't confront the army. The army attacked them.

Did they agree to a check, follow instruction,
or simply dismiss the warnings and proceeded straight towards the patrol?

And why was there no aid on the ship?
That was the passenger ship. Duh! :eusa_doh::eusa_doh::eusa_doh:

Then it's even worse,
by dismissing instructions they endangered passengers under their responsibility.
And why subject the ship and passengers to a needless cargo procedure, by falsely advertising it as an "aid ship", if there was no intent of providing any aid whatsoever?

But frankly P F Tinmore, we both know you'll obsessively lie about anything,
I'm just playing you to see you do the usual Jihadi- Duck- Dance :wink_2:
 
Last edited:

If there is no danger,
why refuse the check and intentionally confront the army?

And why wasn't there actually any aid on the ship?
They didn't confront the army. The army attacked them.

Did they agree to a check, follow instruction,
or simply dismiss the warnings and proceeded straight towards the patrol?

And why was there no aid on the ship?
That was the passenger ship. Duh! :eusa_doh::eusa_doh::eusa_doh:

I mean, didn't you see the footage where those hooded thugs were walking around with billy clubs, just waiting for the soldiers to drop down so they could be beaten over their heads? Are you getting paid for this nonsense or are you a just an idiotic tool for the Islamists?
They were defending themselves from an attack.

What is your point?
 
If there is no danger,
why refuse the check and intentionally confront the army?

And why wasn't there actually any aid on the ship?
They didn't confront the army. The army attacked them.

Did they agree to a check, follow instruction,
or simply dismiss the warnings and proceeded straight towards the patrol?

And why was there no aid on the ship?
That was the passenger ship. Duh! :eusa_doh::eusa_doh::eusa_doh:

I mean, didn't you see the footage where those hooded thugs were walking around with billy clubs, just waiting for the soldiers to drop down so they could be beaten over their heads? Are you getting paid for this nonsense or are you a just an idiotic tool for the Islamists?
They were defending themselves from an attack.

What is your point?

That they didn't come to supply any aid, but just to make trouble and stage a ridiculous and false PR event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top