Jenin: the bloody truth

I did say that "I agree that the most of the anger was a result of the influx of Jews" but they would have fought each other anyway if they hadn't had the Jews to fight until a dictator or king took over.

It is simply not true that Arabs have lived peacefully side by side with other religions and people without destabilization till modern times. They have never lived side by side with even themselves peacfully without a brutal dictator , king , Sultan etc where they had no self determination whatsoever.

I also agreed that "The Zionists did not come to blend in or get along. They came to take over and build a state."

The Palestinians could have had a State also many times over the years , from 48 to 2001. They consistently reject it in favor of war. They don't want peace.

They screwed up over and over again. How many chances do you think we should give them ? I say no more. These barbarians will have nukes some day. We can't have an independent Palestinian state with the likes of Arafat but it goes far deeper than that. The underlying problem is with the Palestinian people themselves. They insist on being lied to upon the threat of death.

The Isrealis have demostrated over and over again that they are willing to trade land for peace , even very strategically and economically important land. The only thing that the Palestinians will trade of peace is dead Jews.

Part of the hate is created by what is experienced on the ground but a big part of it , if not most of it , is the result brainwashing from birth from the constent barrage of lies that they are force fed their whole lives. Sure they have a right to be pissed but much of their anger comes from false propaganda and much of it is missplaced because of all of the false propaganda.

This propaganda is the result of a culture that cannot take responsability for their own failures. They must blame others. They have a servere inferiority complex , like the guy that beats his wife. They can't stand peace. They're leadership thrives on conflict. That's why they turn down a Palestinian State over and over again. They can't controle themselves longenouph to get it. Conflict is all they know. It's all they've ever known. It's very sad.

It's really, I suspect, a desire to legitimize a theft of their land.

What is ? It doesn't need to be legitimized by the US. It's not our fault. Some was given to the Isrealis by the UN but for the most part they are their own worse enemies when it comes to giving up their land. They kept losing more and more of their land because they can't stand peace. If the Palestinians could live peacfully I would insist on giving them an independent homeland. Many insist even though they can't even live with themselves peacefully. The Palestinians continually reject it.

Unfortunately it has become an all or nothing situation. I supose it always was.

This was an interesting comment.

"uniquely among the peoples of the world, they live as refugees after an incredible fifty years"

That is very very far from unique. What would be uniqe is if they were given an independent homeland even though they aren't strong enouph to create or defend it. They must rely on other nations to create and defend a nation which has never existed.

The vast majority of the thousands of different peoples or ethnic groups throughout the world do not have an independent state and don't expect one.

The palestinians are one of the most vocal and violent so they have been offered one on numerous occations only to turn it down again and again in favor violence.

Are you seriously claiming that an alleged command to kill non jews in the Bible 5000 years ago can be used to justify an Israeli military action today?

No. There is much more than ample justification for the military action today without the comandment from God to the twenlve tribes , not just one or two , 5000 years ago.

It's a little late. Besides aparently the Palestinians aren't the decendents of the original inhabitents so the comandment wasn't about them. It does give the Irealis an ancient claim on the land though ; whatever that's worth.

I think that the Isrealis were extreemly muted in their responce to the continual murder of Isreali woman and children. I hope that the US wouldn't have been so timid and wouldn't have waited as long in the same position. We have been awfully timid though. It doesn't bode well for the future.

So, according to your understanding of historical land acquisition, after America defeated Japan and Germany in World War II, their land became ours?

You have an annoying habit of putting words in my mouth when you have nothing to argue.

Once again I ask you to link to my post where I said what you wrote. "Intent" doesn't count.

Of course, what I said was:

"The Sinai was conquered in a war. For good or bad that is usually how throughout history land changes hands."

That is an accurate statement. Note that I did NOT say that that is now it ALWAYS happened.

Now quit changing the subject and address those pesky aerial photos, and tell me where all the massacre victims are.

Jeth, I know you well enough to know you are not an antisemitic, and that your motivation is more Buchanan-style isolation than anything. While we might disagree on that point, section9's implication you are antisemitic is very mistaken.

Sorry Laz. You may notice something about your friend here. You didn't see him condemning the Palestinians in the wake of their campaign of terror. He only pops his head out of the gopher hole when Palestinians of any kind get killed.

In other words, what's another dead Jew to this guy? Jethro only cares when the wrong side loses people. I'm sorry Laz, but I ain't buyin' his protestations of innocence. This guy is a Brigadier, of that I'm almost sure, but I suspect that he shares the latent suspicion of Israel and its motives that Buchanan himself has peddled for years.

However, I was expecting to see a more substantive rebuttal from you. Perhaps you might rise to the challenge later on?

Are you daft, Laz? This fellow is pure "cut and paste", followed on by the ever present wail of "neocon Nazi".

Laz, most of the prominent "neocons" are Jews. William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Jonah Goldberg, and Norman and John Podhoretz come immediately to mind. I'm rather surprised that you haven't made the connection yet. Instead of saying, simply, conservative nazi, he says neocon nazi. He knows what he's saying and why he's saying it.

In short, a more accurate assertion cannot be found than that of William F. Buckley when he wrote of Pat Buchanan, "I cannot defend him against the charges of anti-Semitism." (from the "In Search of Anti-Semitism" issue of National Review back in 1992).

He will never, ever rise to the challenge because he knows that he cannot refute what I say. Thus, this intellectual Thunderbird puppet could never, ever, have any legitimate argument with the tactics he uses.

But he looks awfully fashionable in that blue suit.

Our old friend, instead, has to fall back on the fact that I post an anime image of this character with all my posts. That is the sum and substance of his responses to me.

Jethro Tull can't answer me, and he knows it. His standard of proof is the latest screed from Robert Fisk. The soul of his sentiments can be found in the ravings of John Pilger and the pages of the Daily Mirror. And yes, the Spotlight is out of business now only because Jethro's subscription lapsed.

However, as can plainly be seen from the content of his posts, The Stormfront is still alive and well.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Intent doesn't count?

Since when?

Since you've proven yourself totally incapable of reading comprehension.

So I continue to await proof of your allegations. For those of you just joining us, here are the quotes in question:

responding to section9 post:

"That's enough for now, although I do think we should all get together and take up a collection to get Jethro a year's subscription to The Stormfront."

I responded:

Ahhhh, what to get for the man who has nothing.......

And JT somehow was able to make of that:

Or the neocon nazi Tom, who claims I read Stormfront?

Obviously, anyone who passed first grade reading will see the error.

Next, we have my statement:

The Sinai was conquered in a war. For good or bad that is usually how throughout history land changes hands.

And JT's addle-brained reply:

So, according to your understanding of historical land acquisition, after America defeated Japan and Germany in World War II, their land became ours?

I believe comment is not necessary.

So this is what passes for commentary in the mind of JT.

And still, the questions remain. How can a war crime have been comitted when there are no masses of civilian dead, and how do you explain the aerial pictures that show the refugee camp at Jenin largely intact?

Either take back that slur in #75, or stop posting to me.

Those are my rules, OK?

I don't follow your rules, so expect more pings to posts with the ugly truth.

Your,,,,, err,,,,,point is understood and noted, but please nazi Tom, if this isn't always the case, please provide us with some historic examples to support your conclusion.

Exactly what conclusion are you talking about? I have made the statement that land changes ownership via wars of conquest. I hope you wouldn't need examples of that? I have also made the statement that the previous statement isn't ALWAYS the case, Japan and Germany in WWII.

Did the Sinai become Israeli's property simply because it was they who conquered it?

Yes.

Also, if your peculiar land changing theory is correct, would Tel Aviv become the property of Palestine, if somehow tomorrow it were captured by waves of Arafat's walking bombs?

Unlikely. But if the Palis would grow some balls, use the millions of dollars other Arab countries give them and buy military equipment, and then invade and take over Israel, yes, they would claim it as their own. Would the US recognize the new country? No. But since all the other countries in the area would, it doesn't matter.

I suspect you're inventing and applying another round of 'neocon foreign policy rules?,which are crafted solely in Israeli's best interest.

Obviously not. I'm just pointing out the facts of history.

These ad hoc rules go something like this, "What's ours is theirs, and what's theirs is theirs."

More words in my mouth. You do a nice job of debating yourself.

Sorry bub, the world isn't buying your swill....

You globalist swine don't intimidate me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.