Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I mean a real court, not that kangaroo shit they have in Israel.BTW, no Palestinian has ever been taken to court for so called terrorism.So what's the problem? Open a criminal case.Not true, they even firebombed a UN school where children were. They have assassinated international peacekeepers and reporters. They have blown up ambulances carrying injured victims. They have also carried multiple bombing campaigns over Gaza. Additionally, it is a war crime to steal land in war.Israel has not intentionally destroyed gathering places for innocent people to kill the maximum number of civilians.
Barghouti was.
His defense was the same as Eichman's.
I think the list is long.
He probably believed that the sky is blue. I believe the sky is blue. That does not imply any connection.I mean a real court, not that kangaroo shit they have in Israel.BTW, no Palestinian has ever been taken to court for so called terrorism.So what's the problem? Open a criminal case.Not true, they even firebombed a UN school where children were. They have assassinated international peacekeepers and reporters. They have blown up ambulances carrying injured victims. They have also carried multiple bombing campaigns over Gaza. Additionally, it is a war crime to steal land in war.
Barghouti was.
His defense was the same as Eichman's.
I think the list is long.
This is the exact same "defense" Eichman had.
Congrats Tinmore.
I think the answer to your question is one of perspective. That is, how the topic is considered. It's like polling a population for statistical analysis. Your result depends upon the questions asked of the target population. And of the geography of the study. If you ask a Palestinian in Palestine who among them are terrorists and who are not you would get a much different answer then you would asking in New York for example. So the answer would be dependent upon what criteria you are using to determine what exactly constitutes a Palestinian terrorist. I am sure that to many the differences between a terrorist and a patriot are few. It's a matter of philosophical positioning. When it comes to Israeli soldiers in contested areas there are likely less terrorists from a Palestinian view. From the Israeli perspective there are more terrorists. In my view a terrorist is one ANYONE who uses violence and disruption of civil services as a means of achieving an end. The biggest driver of terrorism and terrorist activity is opposing philosophies. The idea seems to be that neither side views the other as having valid philosophy. Neither side is willing to accept the other. Neither seems willing to live along side the other. As long as there is religious, political or cultural bias in evidence there will be no peace. When it comes to Palestine and Palestinians and their right to be and to prosper there are no terrorists. They are all patriots. To varying degrees. All do not throw bombs. If you want to destroy terrorism you must educate your population as well removing any actual or implied threat to their continued survival. This is the ultimate motivation. Survival. Survival for "my people". Survival for a way of life. Personal survival is the driving motivator for almost all of human activity. Survival on various levels. Unfortunately too many philosophies are contained of less than tolerance for another. This is the problem. Competing ways of life are just that. In competition. This is what needs to be changed. The idea that my survival as a political, religious or cultural entity is threatened by an opposing view is the way of it. Humans have to achieve some validations. Personal as well as cultural or political views need to be validated. This is done by various means. Force is one of the primary standards Humanity is in its adolescence. We bicker like spoiled children. Your god is not my god. Your god is not real. Your interpretation of god isn't valid. To serve my god I must do all that I can to validate my philosophy. I must promote my way of life over all others. This type of thinking is what causes all the problems. There are lots of things I don't want to be. Gay is one of them. But my sexuality is not dependent upon not allowing gay marriage for example. This is a philosophical point purely. There is no way allowing this would threaten my existence as straight. Nothing I could possibly do would stop homosexuality. Nothing. terrorism. Until everyone is free to live unimpeded by others there will be no peace for any. So, how many Palestinians are terrorists? All whose lives and beliefs are threatened by others. That is how many. Personally I think the Palestinians got screwed. It's too bad about the Holocaust. That was horrible for sure. But giving the land to the Jews and taking it away from the Palestinians was not a good thing. Yes the Holocaust was bad. But I think the Israelis are sometimes too much like those they escaped from when it comes to differing ideas and people. That doesn't give anyone else the right to threaten the lives of other innocents. There are too many on both sides.I have done some searching and I can not seem to come up with anything solid. I keep reading posts which indicate that all Palestinians are terrorists. While I'm quite sure that this can't be true, I would love to know how we are defining terrorists when it comes to the Palestinians and what percentage of the population meets that criteria.
Thanks for any help.
He probably believed that the sky is blue. I believe the sky is blue. That does not imply any connection.I mean a real court, not that kangaroo shit they have in Israel.BTW, no Palestinian has ever been taken to court for so called terrorism.So what's the problem? Open a criminal case.
Barghouti was.
His defense was the same as Eichman's.
I think the list is long.
This is the exact same "defense" Eichman had.
Congrats Tinmore.
Shooting people is not the only means of aggression.Israel is the aggressor unless you believe that the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists.as political propaganda designed to incite adverse emotional responses to Israeli Defense Force (IDF) military action against the aggressor (in this case the Hostile Arab Palestinians).
Arabs are the aggressors - they expelled and massacred Palestinian Jews before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.
(COMMENT)Talk about nonsense. The Zionists went to Palestine to take the place over for themselves.This nonsense about the Jewish People being aggressors in the Middle East is simply ridiculous.
(COMMENT)The Zionists called it colonialism. The British called it colonialism. The Palestinians called it colonialism and still do. History calls it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism. People do not get colonized voluntarily. It requires military force.
(COMMENT)The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when this landed on them. They have been defending themselves ever since.
History Channel - Ellis Island said:Located at the mouth of Hudson River between New York and New Jersey, Ellis Island (1892-1954) saw millions of newly arrived immigrants pass through its doors–in fact, it has been estimated that close to 40 percent of all current U.S. citizens can trace at least one of their ancestors to Ellis Island.
The European zionists invaded Palestine and stole land in war. That is a war crime. Look it up.RE: What percentage of Palestinians are terrorists?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is an example of antisemitism of the extreme left.
(COMMENT)Talk about nonsense. The Zionists went to Palestine to take the place over for themselves.This nonsense about the Jewish People being aggressors in the Middle East is simply ridiculous.
What --- Zionist and when?
(I think) Jewish people originally went back to their ancestral homeland to build a new life; more safe and secure then that of the ravages of England, Europe and the Russia. The wanted a fresh start and had a strong pioneer spirit to do it.
There was no military invasion. The Jews were not part of some foreign imperial expansion policy. The Allied Powers did not intend the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over the countryside called Palestine. That was induced by the Arabs of the land, a reaction from the way the Arabs treated the Jewish Immigrants.
Call it what you will; but, colonialism is in that sense is the improper use of the term. The Jewish saw the opportunity to go to a place where they distanced themselves from religious, racial, and political persecution.
(COMMENT)The Zionists called it colonialism. The British called it colonialism. The Palestinians called it colonialism and still do. History calls it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism. People do not get colonized voluntarily. It requires military force.
Generally speaking, there are not many countries in the world where a continuous stream of immigrants are well received.
(COMMENT)The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when this landed on them. They have been defending themselves ever since.
OH yeah. And I'm a little Sicilian Boy --- just trying to make his way through the world.
AND, "defending themselves ever since" ⇒ what a laugh (distortion f the facts). The Arab Population saw the Jewish Immigrants as an easy mark, pushovers, ripe for the plucking. The Arab where surprised when the Jews began to (individually and slowly bigger and bigger collections) turned around and fought back. The big bullies on the playground got a taste of their own medicine.
The Arab were not militarily invaded --- but rather --- mauled by the Jewish Immigrants after th Arabs tried to mug the (apparently weak) Jews. Don't play that military invasion non-sense on us,,, And the insurgent run Palestinian Black Hand was not an example of the Arab boy scouts (more like Arab psychopaths). Lets face it, the Arab got out of hand - not just once --- but several times AND the Jews (appropriately) stomped on them. Now they are just running around crying to everyone how ill treated they have been. With tears in their eyes, dripping blood from the nose, and limping in pain, and whining about what the Israelis did to them. I'm not buying that fraud. It is almost as bad as the fake beggar in the street with a tin can.
(FOOD FOR THOUGH)
I am a second generation, my father being the first in our family to be born in the US. My grand-parents arrived at Ellis Island in 1899. Ask yourself, how many of you are only two or three generations from the immigrants of your family? Was the immigration of your ethnic background considered and invasion?
History Channel - Ellis Island said:Located at the mouth of Hudson River between New York and New Jersey, Ellis Island (1892-1954) saw millions of newly arrived immigrants pass through its doors–in fact, it has been estimated that close to 40 percent of all current U.S. citizens can trace at least one of their ancestors to Ellis Island.
If the Arab Palestinians had not been as hostile as they were, history might have been much more favorable to them. But, let's be clear. May be everything West of the Jordan River might be Arab.
Most Respectfully,
R
The European zionists invaded Palestine and stole land in war. That is a war crime. Look it up.RE: What percentage of Palestinians are terrorists?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is an example of antisemitism of the extreme left.
(COMMENT)Talk about nonsense. The Zionists went to Palestine to take the place over for themselves.This nonsense about the Jewish People being aggressors in the Middle East is simply ridiculous.
What --- Zionist and when?
(I think) Jewish people originally went back to their ancestral homeland to build a new life; more safe and secure then that of the ravages of England, Europe and the Russia. The wanted a fresh start and had a strong pioneer spirit to do it.
There was no military invasion. The Jews were not part of some foreign imperial expansion policy. The Allied Powers did not intend the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over the countryside called Palestine. That was induced by the Arabs of the land, a reaction from the way the Arabs treated the Jewish Immigrants.
Call it what you will; but, colonialism is in that sense is the improper use of the term. The Jewish saw the opportunity to go to a place where they distanced themselves from religious, racial, and political persecution.
(COMMENT)The Zionists called it colonialism. The British called it colonialism. The Palestinians called it colonialism and still do. History calls it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism. People do not get colonized voluntarily. It requires military force.
Generally speaking, there are not many countries in the world where a continuous stream of immigrants are well received.
(COMMENT)The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when this landed on them. They have been defending themselves ever since.
OH yeah. And I'm a little Sicilian Boy --- just trying to make his way through the world.
AND, "defending themselves ever since" ⇒ what a laugh (distortion f the facts). The Arab Population saw the Jewish Immigrants as an easy mark, pushovers, ripe for the plucking. The Arab where surprised when the Jews began to (individually and slowly bigger and bigger collections) turned around and fought back. The big bullies on the playground got a taste of their own medicine.
The Arab were not militarily invaded --- but rather --- mauled by the Jewish Immigrants after th Arabs tried to mug the (apparently weak) Jews. Don't play that military invasion non-sense on us,,, And the insurgent run Palestinian Black Hand was not an example of the Arab boy scouts (more like Arab psychopaths). Lets face it, the Arab got out of hand - not just once --- but several times AND the Jews (appropriately) stomped on them. Now they are just running around crying to everyone how ill treated they have been. With tears in their eyes, dripping blood from the nose, and limping in pain, and whining about what the Israelis did to them. I'm not buying that fraud. It is almost as bad as the fake beggar in the street with a tin can.
(FOOD FOR THOUGH)
I am a second generation, my father being the first in our family to be born in the US. My grand-parents arrived at Ellis Island in 1899. Ask yourself, how many of you are only two or three generations from the immigrants of your family? Was the immigration of your ethnic background considered and invasion?
History Channel - Ellis Island said:Located at the mouth of Hudson River between New York and New Jersey, Ellis Island (1892-1954) saw millions of newly arrived immigrants pass through its doors–in fact, it has been estimated that close to 40 percent of all current U.S. citizens can trace at least one of their ancestors to Ellis Island.
If the Arab Palestinians had not been as hostile as they were, history might have been much more favorable to them. But, let's be clear. May be everything West of the Jordan River might be Arab.
Most Respectfully,
R
The European zionists invaded Palestine and stole land in war. That is a war crime. Look it up.RE: What percentage of Palestinians are terrorists?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is an example of antisemitism of the extreme left.
(COMMENT)Talk about nonsense. The Zionists went to Palestine to take the place over for themselves.This nonsense about the Jewish People being aggressors in the Middle East is simply ridiculous.
What --- Zionist and when?
(I think) Jewish people originally went back to their ancestral homeland to build a new life; more safe and secure then that of the ravages of England, Europe and the Russia. The wanted a fresh start and had a strong pioneer spirit to do it.
There was no military invasion. The Jews were not part of some foreign imperial expansion policy. The Allied Powers did not intend the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over the countryside called Palestine. That was induced by the Arabs of the land, a reaction from the way the Arabs treated the Jewish Immigrants.
Call it what you will; but, colonialism is in that sense is the improper use of the term. The Jewish saw the opportunity to go to a place where they distanced themselves from religious, racial, and political persecution.
(COMMENT)The Zionists called it colonialism. The British called it colonialism. The Palestinians called it colonialism and still do. History calls it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism. People do not get colonized voluntarily. It requires military force.
Generally speaking, there are not many countries in the world where a continuous stream of immigrants are well received.
(COMMENT)The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when this landed on them. They have been defending themselves ever since.
OH yeah. And I'm a little Sicilian Boy --- just trying to make his way through the world.
AND, "defending themselves ever since" ⇒ what a laugh (distortion f the facts). The Arab Population saw the Jewish Immigrants as an easy mark, pushovers, ripe for the plucking. The Arab where surprised when the Jews began to (individually and slowly bigger and bigger collections) turned around and fought back. The big bullies on the playground got a taste of their own medicine.
The Arab were not militarily invaded --- but rather --- mauled by the Jewish Immigrants after th Arabs tried to mug the (apparently weak) Jews. Don't play that military invasion non-sense on us,,, And the insurgent run Palestinian Black Hand was not an example of the Arab boy scouts (more like Arab psychopaths). Lets face it, the Arab got out of hand - not just once --- but several times AND the Jews (appropriately) stomped on them. Now they are just running around crying to everyone how ill treated they have been. With tears in their eyes, dripping blood from the nose, and limping in pain, and whining about what the Israelis did to them. I'm not buying that fraud. It is almost as bad as the fake beggar in the street with a tin can.
(FOOD FOR THOUGH)
I am a second generation, my father being the first in our family to be born in the US. My grand-parents arrived at Ellis Island in 1899. Ask yourself, how many of you are only two or three generations from the immigrants of your family? Was the immigration of your ethnic background considered and invasion?
History Channel - Ellis Island said:Located at the mouth of Hudson River between New York and New Jersey, Ellis Island (1892-1954) saw millions of newly arrived immigrants pass through its doors–in fact, it has been estimated that close to 40 percent of all current U.S. citizens can trace at least one of their ancestors to Ellis Island.
If the Arab Palestinians had not been as hostile as they were, history might have been much more favorable to them. But, let's be clear. May be everything West of the Jordan River might be Arab.
Most Respectfully,
R
Is mass immigration a better way to describe what the Palestinians experienced?There was no invasion by The Zionists©
These frantic appeals to slogans are stereotypical for the islamic / islamic convert cabal but have no connection to contingent history.
Is mass immigration a better way to describe what the Palestinians experienced?There was no invasion by The Zionists©
These frantic appeals to slogans are stereotypical for the islamic / islamic convert cabal but have no connection to contingent history.
Ha, look at the facts. When Britain changed from the occupying power to a Mandate in Jordan they pulled out their troops and left behind a handful of advisors. Under the Mandate they were supposed to render administrative assistance and advise until the people could stand alone.There was no military invasion. The Jews were not part of some foreign imperial expansion policy.
Ha, look at the facts. When Britain changed from the occupying power to a Mandate in Jordan they pulled out their troops and left behind a handful of advisors. Under the Mandate they were supposed to render administrative assistance and advise until the people could stand alone.There was no military invasion. The Jews were not part of some foreign imperial expansion policy.
In Palestine, however, Britain kept its military presence. They knew they were going to pull some shit and needed to keep its guns at hand. This was all premeditated.
Oh jeese, another slime piece against the Palestinians.The Arab were not militarily invaded --- but rather --- mauled by the Jewish Immigrants after th Arabs tried to mug the (apparently weak) Jews. Don't play that military invasion non-sense on us,,, And the insurgent run Palestinian Black Hand was not an example of the Arab boy scouts (more like Arab psychopaths). Lets face it, the Arab got out of hand - not just once --- but several times AND the Jews (appropriately) stomped on them. Now they are just running around crying to everyone how ill treated they have been. With tears in their eyes, dripping blood from the nose, and limping in pain, and whining about what the Israelis did to them. I'm not buying that fraud. It is almost as bad as the fake beggar in the street with a tin can.
(QUESTIONs)E: What percentage of Palestinians are terrorists?
※→ abi, et al,
I see this accusation quite frequently.
[QUOTE="abi, post: 18777187, member: 66486"
The European zionists invaded Palestine and stole land in war. That is a war crime. Look it up.
(COMMENT)Ha, look at the facts. When Britain changed from the occupying power to a Mandate in Jordan they pulled out their troops and left behind a handful of advisors. Under the Mandate they were supposed to render administrative assistance and advise until the people could stand alone.There was no military invasion. The Jews were not part of some foreign imperial expansion policy.
In Palestine, however, Britain kept its military presence. They knew they were going to pull some shit and needed to keep its guns at hand. This was all premeditated.
The Making of Transjordan said:Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
• Official Jordanian History Site •
Trained [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Transjordan']Transjordan[/URL]'s [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Legion']Arab Legion[/URL] between 1939 and 1956 said:Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC, KStJ, KPM, known as Glubb Pasha, was a British soldier, scholar and author, who led and trained Transjordan's Arab Legion between 1939 and 1956 as its commanding general. During the First World War, he served in France.
• From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia •
This doesn't refute anything I posted.RE: What percentage of Palestinians are terrorists?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are kidding --- right?
(COMMENT)Ha, look at the facts. When Britain changed from the occupying power to a Mandate in Jordan they pulled out their troops and left behind a handful of advisors. Under the Mandate they were supposed to render administrative assistance and advise until the people could stand alone.There was no military invasion. The Jews were not part of some foreign imperial expansion policy.
In Palestine, however, Britain kept its military presence. They knew they were going to pull some shit and needed to keep its guns at hand. This was all premeditated.
On 15 May 1923, Britain formally reconized the "Emirate" of Trans-Jordan under the leadership of Emir Abdullah [brother of Faisal ibn Hussein (who became Faisal I of Iraq)]. The British still maintained oversight of finances, military operations, and foreign affairs. This would not change until 22 March 1946, with the Treaty of Alliance between HM in Respect of the United Kingdom and His Highness the Emir of Jordan. In this Treaty, the UK states:
Article !
"His Majesty the King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness the Emir as the sovereign thereof."
From the Jordanian point of view (thumbnail), is expressed as follows:
The Making of Transjordan said:Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
• Official Jordanian History Site •
There was still a small military presence, and as was (and still is) a customary practice, there was a stay-behind contingent:
Trained [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Transjordan']Transjordan[/URL]'s [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Legion']Arab Legion[/URL] between 1939 and 1956 said:Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC, KStJ, KPM, known as Glubb Pasha, was a British soldier, scholar and author, who led and trained Transjordan's Arab Legion between 1939 and 1956 as its commanding general. During the First World War, he served in France.
• From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia •
As I said, this was customary practice of the Allied Powrs, in those days.
You are drawing the wrong inference.
Most Respectfully,
R
What does that have to do with Israel's kangaroo court?He probably believed that the sky is blue. I believe the sky is blue. That does not imply any connection.I mean a real court, not that kangaroo shit they have in Israel.BTW, no Palestinian has ever been taken to court for so called terrorism.
Barghouti was.
His defense was the same as Eichman's.
I think the list is long.
This is the exact same "defense" Eichman had.
Congrats Tinmore.
We're not talking about the color of the sky.
We're talking about a Palestinian Arab who was convicted for terrorism, and used the same "defense" and excuses Eichman used for his actions. One cannot simply go and say I'm innocent because "Jews can't judge me" without raising a brow. But both used the same "defense" to justify their actions.
You keep using the same argument.
