this is what I said yes love you know its time to finish when it gets repetitive wasnt trying to be patronising, and doesnt mention boring your response was If you're not going to back up your ridiculous ranting, then don't post a load of anti-Western bull**** on here every day. You're a bigot and an anti-Semitic coward, frankly. Pathetic. which frankly is boring
Maybe, but I think some of your tiffs are caused by your views though. You always put them across politely but they are often inflammatory and sometimes offensive.
do you usually use references that are not factual and you dont belive in? so israels right to exist is based on something you dont accept? 'I was going by the Torah/Bible. It's quite explicit in promising the land to the Israelites.'
In what way is 'yes love ' not an attempt to be patronising? We were talking about the concept of Israel and where that concept originated, which you claimed was "around since 1800's, put in place in 1917 by Balfour et al." I was showing that this was inaccurate. You disagreed and said that their reason for believing that they should have have that land were wrong, according to scripture and I wanted to know what you meant, as the scripture quite explicitly counters what you've claimed. Do I believe that their claims based upon scripture are correct? No. Do I believe that you in particular have got any right to object to someone taking over the place and giving it to them? No.
its the same people if you notice. It seems they hunt out my threads and i can honestly say that sometimes i am wumming and trying to get a rise In all honesty though that was a genuine question to/for DEV. simply because he had been quite helpful in the school exam balls up thread I was actually being genuine and the fact is that there were allegations against the British troops, some say they were 'resolved' some say 'hushed up' Devs initial response and, what seemed to me, foaming at the mouth lead to me avoiding it as much as possible as I could 'see' it was winding him up no end and i took exception to his attitude and holier than thou attitude. (all my opinion of course) If your interested see Kathryn Bolkovac. She was posted to Sarajevo in 1999 to investigate the traffic in young women from Eastern Europe. she was a former IPTF officer investigating human trafficking and forced prostitution, was awarded £110,000 by an employment tribunal in Southampton after she was unfairly sacked after blowing the whistle on colleagues, including British men, involved in the Bosnian sex trade. Two Britons, a UN peacekeeper and a policeman, have been sent home after allegations involving the sex trade. apparently non were prosecuted
Mate look at the OP it says obama = israels bitch the fact that he said he (the USA) would veto a proposal to the UN, before said proposal was put forward is evidence of that imo for those (like me) who have said/argued/aserted/alleged that the USA is the reason for israel getting away with war crimes, getting money for weaponary, USA being basically 'partners' in the killing of palestinians, influencing the flotilla reports etc, and getting grief from some on here it provides some justification for the views held and offers, dare i say, proof
The notion of Israel is religious. Trying to define it as having originated in the 1800s doesn't make any sense. It was an actual place from about 1100BC til around 750BC. I wasn't. I was using it to show that it's not a modern concept, as you've claimed. Of course I accept freedom of speech. You've shown that you don't, but that's another matter. You clearly don't believe that someone conquering others is a bad thing, so why object to this particular example?
The jews have no historical claim to anywhere. They've been persecuted and hounded out of pretty much everywhere they've ever been, bar America. Maybe that will happen one day, if America gets tired of being "Israel's bitch". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews "In the 19th and (before the end of the second World War) 20th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church adhered to a distinction between "good anti-Semitism" and "bad anti-Semitism". The "bad" kind promoted hatred of Jews because of their descent. This was considered un-Christian because the Christian message was intended for all of humanity regardless of ethnicity; anyone could become a Christian. The "good" kind criticized alleged Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc." Not condoing anti-semitism of any kind, but it's interesting to see that even in the 19th centruy, their perceived "method" of consolidating power was much the same as it is today. It's almost as though they're working to a plan, to further the Jewish cause and to hell with everyone else.
By reading your constant Anti Western/Jew/Army rants, I know all I need to know about you. You are ignorant, intolerant and small minded. Childish and petty, with a large chip on each shoulder. You have called me a "murderer" on more than one occasion so where did you come by that idea? You assume that every British sodlier is a killer, always follows orders and is probably a potential rapist/pimp and that kind of sums you up. I wish to **** we still had national service because I would pay good money to see you in uniform. You would not last 5 minutes. As for "fulfilling fanatsies" you are the man saying that you could take an SAS man in a fight. As anyone can see you are all bluff and bluster and you have a very short fuse as well as some serious issues. I actually pity you.
welcome back sarge take it your still foaming at the mouth? I think if you swear and abuse people on an internet forum then its fair game to be insulted right back I wish we had national service too, am a big advocate of it in fact. you would get reasonable/good people into the forces for a couple of years. at the moment it seems its the school dropouts and degenerates, hence the abuse in Iraq etc Could you show where I said 'i could take' please. I pity you knowing you have blood on your hands, innocent blood
The attempts to create another Jewish state on that site have been going since around 6th century BC. There have been numerous attempts down the centuries to re-establish Israel, so pointing to one of the modern ones is just inaccurate. It was an actual place. The reason that they keep trying to recreate it is religious. By backing those that threatened to kill a cartoonist. You disagree with people conquering other people and places? That puts you at odds with your own religion, doesn't it?
That was not what you said and what I asked you said 'You clearly don't believe that someone conquering others is a bad thing, so why object to this particular example?' and i asked for evidence where do I clearly believe that?
Nobody has claimed that Israel did appear after WWII. You're trying to claim that it's a relatively new concept though, for some reason. Even secularly speaking, that's clearly not the case, as it was an actual place. Wrong. I was showing that your idea of Israel as a modern concept wasn't accurate. I just answered this. You backed those that would suppress free speech through violence or the threat of violence, showing that you don't agree with it. What part of that are you struggling with? The prophet Mohammed united the tribes of Arabia through conquest, didn't he? He took Mecca through conquest. Do you disagree with those actions?
I will answer this as soon as you provide evidence for the statement 'You clearly don't believe that someone conquering others is a bad thing, so why object to this particular example?'
And I disagree/d. It clearly isn't a modern concept and what is it that I'm supposed to be avoiding? You said that someone shouldn't have been jailed for chanting, "bomb, bomb, USA", "bomb, bomb, Denmark", "we want Danish blood!", "UK you will pay!" and "7/7 on its way!". You also object to a bloke making some drawings that you don't like. I already have. As usual, you're trying to dodge the question. You don't disagree with the general idea of conquest, do you?
