Wrong , the Palestinians were cheated and were given much less than they were promised by Britain after helping them overcome the Ottoman empire. Although the Zionists were in the minority , slowly they starting expanding through the help of GB and USA. Now many the Palestinians live as refugees in the surrounding countries or are in a territory that was continuously blocked by Israel , blocking the import of food , aid , medical eauipment and more. Look at the whole story geographically , the state of Israel just isn't right , based in a place surrounded by Arabs and they want to play as the big bosses using big stick imperialism in the process. Who fits better in the Middle East where all the Arab countires are located? Palestinans (Arabs) or Israelis (European Jews)? This whole bollocks story that Israel moved there for religious reasons is absolute bollocks as the colonizers were all atheists only interested in funding a colonial settlement , bombarding synagogues in the surrounding Arab countries with a view of stampeding all the Jews into occupied territories.
As long as the US are a member of the UN security council, this problem will never be solved because they will just veto any bid for Palestinian statehood (like they will do when the vote goes ahead in a few days time)
The really tragic thing is that you actually believe this garbage you've written. Try learning the real history of the area, instead of quoting verbatim off Hamas' website.
True. I think you'll find that the Zionist scum chose and justified relocating to a host of other places before settling for their current location. <thinkingvile&evilthoughtsaboutamerica&zionistssmiley)
OK for the final time, and sinking to his level, will someone PLEASE teach this stupid, ignorant muthafooka to read I said and i quote, with the key bits highlighted and a commentary Dev I dont know if you can shed light from during your time, but there are cover ups and there are dismissals or 'telling offs' for offences. Now please notice the 'DEV' and the 'shed light' bit. so am I making an assertion or asking a question from somebody who was ion the military and may know I know for example that there are allegations of british soldiers involved in the child sex trade in places where they are 'peacekeepers'. The accusers are 100% certain but it is difficult to prove and easier to cover up. same with drugs. Now again look at the highlighted words and the sentence. for example and allegations, how are thes words even remotely me blaming British troops? Also see dificult to prove. so please correct me if i am wrong but doesnt that mean what it says? PLEASE someone ANYONE explain to me where I/ME/TFWNN has made an allegation that has this complete and utter prick/****/moron so riled up? if anything it was something addressed to him (him being ex-military) to shed some insider knowledge on. It was another thread/another debate which mick closed down. he has chosen to bring it on to here the fookin guys in meltdown, on an internet forum FFS someone have a word, before he has a heartattack or something
"I know for example that there are allegations of british soldiers involved in the child sex trade in places where they are 'peacekeepers'. The accusers are 100% certain but it is difficult to prove and easier to cover up. same with drugs". Let me spell it out for you as you are obviously not as clever as you like to think. "I know" That means you have knowledge of. In your mind it is a fact. "There are allegations". You made a statement of fact that there are/were allegations. You underline that point about allegations by stating that "The accusers are 100% but it is difficult to prove and easier to cover up. same with drugs". So where did you hear or read about these allegations? It's as simple as that. YOU made "Allegations" that you had heard "british soldiers were involved in the child sex trade in places where they are 'peacekeepers". All I am asking is where you heard/read these allegations. Do you understand or do you need a diagram and a dictionary? What was your source? ps http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/88275-Tips-for-debating-on-Internet-Forums 2: Tell the person you are arguing with that he/she is "angry" all the while you will be pretending to be as cool as a cucumber. And please don't waste your time asking other posters for help to pull you out of the hole you are continuing to dig, It's embarrassing.
I've just read that again and I have to say that is one of (if not the) most cringeworthy replies I have ever read. Seriously, you are a teenager aren't you? You have been lying about being an adult family man because no adult would talk like that.
What would be the point in trying to prove anything to you, when you don't accept the burden of proof? Anything that I'd show you would just be avoided, as you just accept what you want to accept. You're unbelievably dishonest and childish. As you don't accept the burden of proof, how do you decide what's true and what isn't?
I cant read quotes :S I thought he was saying rape when he said child prostituition. You are right he hasn't provided a single link to prove assertations or otherwise ... but then throughout all the conversations we have had with TFWNN has he ever? He is islamic thats for sure, and god bless him a DIY nightmare, but I had the biggest laugh when he thought he could do in an SAS man. TBF i thought he had bad press up until that point, but thinking you could beat a guy who has been trained day and night to kill when you are a "teacher" is absurd!!!
He made it up, as that seems to be his style. If he would just admit it we could move on...but he won't, he's never wrong. As for him taking a SAS man, that just shows him for the ignorant fool he is.
yes sarge are you sarge from hong kong fooey by the way? you have been made to look like an illiterate moron and now this is a feeble attempt to retain dignity truth is you dont know **** all about me, thats the thing with an internet forum you see It does allow idiots like you to fulfill fantasies, so all is good
and what is the point of carrying on a conversation with a guy who admits that his argument is hypothetical? there is no LOGIC in that for me. You are athiest by your own admission right? so why argue about what God said to moses/abraham/jesus/muhammad re Israel? You are a hypocrite, you an athiest, put forward the notion that it was promised/given to them by god you know that entity you reject then do what all athiest do 'prove it?' well here is a thought do a thread about what you believe and prove that this was how the universe was created however that burden of proof oft proves too heavy and finally why do arseholes like you and DEV say goodbye and then come back on and post more drivel?
Don't be ridiculous TFWNN. There's no proof that you wouldn't be able to beat Usain Bolt in the 100m but we know you wouldn't. There's no proof you couldn't beat Ronaldo in a free-kick competition but again we know you wouldn't.
I think your two examples of bolt and ronaldo are harder tha taking on an sas guy Not a fast runner, not a great footballer, fighting, i reckon i would give most a go
