Reply to: British Jews

[Old Greg]

terrible program - excuses galore

muslims hate jews
left wingers hate israel
nick griffiths wrote a piece on Jews running the show

now which is the race hate one, perhaps llittle richardjohn should have concentrated on the real haters.

Has CD created another moronic character?

[Moscow Mule]

Not seen the video - banned at work...

Is it pro or anti?

It's a recruiting video from Indiana. Very nice chap gives the commentary.

[Churchill]

Yours.

Not seen the video - banned at work...

Is it pro or anti?

[Moscow Mule]

Whose God?

Yours.

[Churchill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x42AGtb0jkw

God bless the Freemasons.

Whose God?

[Moscow Mule]

At least he's not blaming the Freemasons!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x42AGtb0jkw

God bless the Freemasons.

[Diver]

At least he's not blaming the Freemasons!

I should hope not

[Churchill]

terrible program - excuses galore

muslims hate jews
left wingers hate israel
nick griffiths wrote a piece on Jews running the show

now which is the race hate one, perhaps llittle richardjohn should have concentrated on the real haters.

At least he's not blaming the Freemasons!

[Moscow Mule]

I will

Go on then

[DavidCH]

3 messages

terrible program - excuses galore

muslims hate jews
left wingers hate israel
nick griffiths wrote a piece on Jews running the show

now which is the race hate one, perhaps llittle richardjohn should have concentrated on the real haters.

[Old Greg]

Your justification for the original comment (who ever the author) is complete and utter rubbish, the comment still stands.


I suggest you go and read what you wrote originally, here let me help:

Suggest you believe they should apologise. I suggest you learn to write what you actually mean.


Who was kicked-out, I would of thought that the UN mandate just formalized Israel as a legal entity. Are you suggesting the UN initiated ethic cleansing. There are Arab citizens in Israel who vote in Israeli elections, I believe the current Israel government even has an Arab minister.


I wonder what the UN response would be to a successful invasion of Israel. I would like to bet that it would be zero; let me explain, AFAIK Israel has no natural resources that would give other parties a vested interest in keeping Israel going. A simple example of vested interest in case you are struggling with the concept; why invade Sadam's Iraq and not Mugabe's Zimbabwe, since both are responsible for at least 10,000 of deaths? Answer one has oil and the other has feck all.


Nice to nearly agree on something.


Until they learn to behave in a non-aggressive manner none what so ever.


As with every nu Labour apparatchik you cannot match (or probably understand the argument) so you turn to abuse.

Well you still don't understand the difference between justifying and explaining.

I don't believe they should apologise but if they had it would be relevant to my explanation.

As I have said, there is dispute about the historicity and extent of kicking out of Palestinians from Israel. Each side will continue to say the other's side is propaganda.

You go on to say nothing relevant to the suffering of the Palestinian people under illegal Israeli occupation. Why should the Palestinians act non-aggressively (actually it's defensively). Under international law, they're entitled to violently resist occupation. No I'm not saying I support Hamas or every Palestinian action.

Oil is not the only vested interest. Israel is geopolitically important.

What have I got to do with NL? I've never voted for them or supported them. Or does that fit into your nice simplistic labelling?

Suggest you engage your brain.

[Addanc]

Twisted logic - I wasn't condemning the Daily Mail, just explaining someone else's comment, so your 1st paragraph is nonsense.

Your justification for the original comment (who ever the author) is complete and utter rubbish, the comment still stands.

I didn't say the Daily Mail should apologise, but if it had, it would have been noteworthy in my explanation of someone else's comment. So your 2nd paragraph is nonsense. Not doing too well so far. Let's see how you get on from here.

I suggest you go and read what you wrote originally, here let me help:

I don't know of anything post-war, but I don't know whether they've apologised either.

Suggest you believe they should apologise. I suggest you learn to write what you actually mean.

I don't agree with the UN mandate because it kicked the people living in the territory already were kicked out. This is a matter that is debated as to its historicity and extent, but that's my view.

Who was kicked-out, I would of thought that the UN mandate just formalized Israel as a legal entity. Are you suggesting the UN initiated ethic cleansing. There are Arab citizens in Israel who vote in Israeli elections, I believe the current Israel government even has an Arab minister.

Israel occupies land in defiance of UN resolutions (remember that UN you were so keen on?) and acts illegally (under international law) within that occupation - settlement being an obvious example.

I wonder what the UN response would be to a successful invasion of Israel. I would like to bet that it would be zero; let me explain, AFAIK Israel has no natural resources that would give other parties a vested interest in keeping Israel going. A simple example of vested interest in case you are struggling with the concept; why invade Sadam's Iraq and not Mugabe's Zimbabwe, since both are responsible for at least 10,000 of deaths? Answer one has oil and the other has feck all.

I suspect you are right about Arab countries having an interest in continuing the situation. That doesn't justify Israeli occupation.

Nice to nearly agree on something.

You have every sympathy for Israel - how much for the Palestinians?

Until they learn to behave in a non-aggressive manner none what so ever.

I've never liked Toynbee so I'm unlikely to have attended any of her camps - didn't even know she ran any.

Suggest you engage brain a bit better next time.

As with every nu Labour apparatchik you cannot match (or probably understand the argument) so you turn to abuse.

[DodgyAgent]

I was being sarcastic, but I gather that's as good as you'll get, so wallow in it while you can.

I will

[Old Greg]

I was being sarcastic, but I gather that's as good as you'll get, so wallow in it while you can.

[DodgyAgent]

It wasn't genuine.

It is still has the word "sorry" in it