It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:50 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 418 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15018
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
oh, and Don Tiny "reservations" is post of the month.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I told you already. If you don't understand tough. How do you feel about Bin Laden's claims. Funny but not surprising you didn't answer.

Who is doing spin now? :lol:



If there is no empty land to be inhabited then it doesn't. It's that simple. If you aren't going to address Bin Laden or Israel for that matter then again have a good one.

If you think that Israel has moral justification to do what it did then be prepared for for future turmoil in the region. For those that it effects I hope for the best.

Israel had the moral justification to be declared a nation as it did so without taking land from any nation as there was at no point in history any independent nation named Palestine. They simply set up a state on land that had been granted to them and the inhabitants (Jew or Arab) would be granted citizenship and really nothing would change other than they would no longer be subjects to the crown. That the Arabs rejected partition is a tragedy and Israel really cannot be blamed for what followed as it was the rejection of partition that led to the present situation.

From the fact you are dodging just about everything I've written in this thread, I can only deduce that you are completely ignorant on this subject and unwilling to engage with facts.



The reason that I avoided it is because I simply didn't wish to go down this road again. First off yes there wasn't a state called Palestine. However Palestinians were overwhelmingly the majority group in the region. If anyone was to be granted a state it should have been them.

2ndly as you say that Palestine never existed neither has the concept behind Zionism. Zionism is a rather contrived belief created by some guy during the late 1800's. Even if it did have historical relevance that doesn't mean that it had to be actualized on land inhabited by another group.

3rdly The terms under which Israel was created were dubious to say the least.

The problem is that your facts here are wrong. The Palestinians were not the overwhelming majority of people in the region. They were the overwhelming majority of the people in the lands granted to them via partition, but not the region. The Jews were in fact the overwhelming majority in the lands that were partitioned for the Jewish state.

It was clear that only partition could work as 1 state was not workable. Starting in the 1920s when Arab nationalism started to take hold, attacks aginst Jews in the land became regular. There were massacres in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. Pogroms like those of the Czars became commonplace in Jewish neighborhoods. It was clear that 2 states would have to be granted to 2 people as making the Jews a minority within an Arab state would be setting them in danger not even 3 years after the Holocaust ended.

Furthermore, when the land was granted to Israel, it was done knowing there were still over a million Jewish refugees stuck in DP camps post Holocaust who had nowhere else to go. It was also done with the knowledge that 900,000 Jews were living as 2nd class citizens in Arab lands and likely to come set-up home.

No Palestinian had to give up his land for partition and those who accepted it still live in Israel as Arab Israelis with more rights than any other Arab in the Middle East. All that partition did is have them no longer be subjects of the British crown and instead be living in a majority Jewish nation, but granting them rights they never had being ruled from London or Istanbul. Once again, no land was "taken" as there was no country to take it from. The people who accepted partition got to stay as they had before and their children are thriving.

As for Zionism, yes the idea of a Jewish state being formed started in the 19th century, but you're ignoring the fact there was a constant Jewish presence in the region. Jews have lived in that land uninterrupted for over 3,000 years. In fact, even before Zionism became a political movement, the Jewish people were the majority population in Jerusalem as early as 1860, over 3 decades before Herzl.

As for how Israel was created, it's hardly dubious. Partition was often the solution when a colonial power left and there were 2 different groups of people who could not be expected to share a country. Pakistan was never an independent country until the British carved it out of India.

Once again, if partition is accepted none of this is being discussed today.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
You've lost, and now you are embarrassing yourself. It reads like a child trying to use a thesaurus to sound intelligent. How did you come to have this non-American worldview btw? Where else have you lived?


To demonstrate weakness you have constantly focused on personal aspects. You couldn't refute what I wrote regarding holy lands so you resort to the tried yet not so true ad hominem.

You have been blistered here. You asked for primary sources and I provided the definitive document which outlined the guys views.

I don't have an "anti-American" worldview but I'm not a fool for this country either. I don't believe in "American exceptionalism". Unlike you and others that post here I don't regard this country as being infallible. You appear to be either ignorant or an apologist neither of which is very good. When guys pooh pooh or ignore mistakes made by America it's dangerous. Thousands of lives have been lost because of idiotic decisions made by guys too stupid or "fanatical" to realize consequences.

You don't have a clue about this stuff and it's obvious that you have never read a book about it. Your posts read like run of the mill right wing talking points. Rush Hannity and Savage would be proud.

If I asked a 6th grader to critique that article he would did a better job than you. I'm certain that they would not have referenced holy lands after reading it. The worse part for you was that it was actually in the guys on own words. Even with that you still were unable to comprehend the material.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15018
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I told you already. If you don't understand tough. How do you feel about Bin Laden's claims. Funny but not surprising you didn't answer.

Who is doing spin now? :lol:



If there is no empty land to be inhabited then it doesn't. It's that simple. If you aren't going to address Bin Laden or Israel for that matter then again have a good one.

If you think that Israel has moral justification to do what it did then be prepared for for future turmoil in the region. For those that it effects I hope for the best.

Israel had the moral justification to be declared a nation as it did so without taking land from any nation as there was at no point in history any independent nation named Palestine. They simply set up a state on land that had been granted to them and the inhabitants (Jew or Arab) would be granted citizenship and really nothing would change other than they would no longer be subjects to the crown. That the Arabs rejected partition is a tragedy and Israel really cannot be blamed for what followed as it was the rejection of partition that led to the present situation.

From the fact you are dodging just about everything I've written in this thread, I can only deduce that you are completely ignorant on this subject and unwilling to engage with facts.



The reason that I avoided it is because I simply didn't wish to go down this road again. First off yes there wasn't a state called Palestine. However Palestinians were overwhelmingly the majority group in the region. If anyone was to be granted a state it should have been them.

2ndly as you say that Palestine never existed neither has the concept behind Zionism. Zionism is a rather contrived belief created by some guy during the late 1800's. Even if it did have historical relevance that doesn't mean that it had to be actualized on land inhabited by another group.

3rdly The terms under which Israel was created were dubious to say the least.

The problem is that your facts here are wrong. The Palestinians were not the overwhelming majority of people in the region. They were the overwhelming majority of the people in the lands granted to them via partition, but not the region. The Jews were in fact the overwhelming majority in the lands that were partitioned for the Jewish state.

It was clear that only partition could work as 1 state was not workable. Starting in the 1920s when Arab nationalism started to take hold, attacks aginst Jews in the land became regular. There were massacres in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. Pogroms like those of the Czars became commonplace in Jewish neighborhoods. It was clear that 2 states would have to be granted to 2 people as making the Jews a minority within an Arab state would be setting them in danger not even 3 years after the Holocaust ended.

Furthermore, when the land was granted to Israel, it was done knowing there were still over a million Jewish refugees stuck in DP camps post Holocaust who had nowhere else to go. It was also done with the knowledge that 900,000 Jews were living as 2nd class citizens in Arab lands and likely to come set-up home.

No Palestinian had to give up his land for partition and those who accepted it still live in Israel as Arab Israelis with more rights than any other Arab in the Middle East. All that partition did is have them no longer be subjects of the British crown and instead be living in a majority Jewish nation, but granting them rights they never had being ruled from London or Istanbul. Once again, no land was "taken" as there was no country to take it from. The people who accepted partition got to stay as they had before and their children are thriving.

As for Zionism, yes the idea of a Jewish state being formed started in the 19th century, but you're ignoring the fact there was a constant Jewish presence in the region. Jews have lived in that land uninterrupted for over 3,000 years. In fact, even before Zionism became a political movement, the Jewish people were the majority population in Jerusalem as early as 1860, over 3 decades before Herzl.

As for how Israel was created, it's hardly dubious. Partition was often the solution when a colonial power left and there were 2 different groups of people who could not be expected to share a country. Pakistan was never an independent country until the British carved it out of India.

Once again, if partition is accepted none of this is being discussed today.

I'd like to see this get refuted point by point. I'm trying to get educated.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I told you already. If you don't understand tough. How do you feel about Bin Laden's claims. Funny but not surprising you didn't answer.

Who is doing spin now? :lol:



If there is no empty land to be inhabited then it doesn't. It's that simple. If you aren't going to address Bin Laden or Israel for that matter then again have a good one.

If you think that Israel has moral justification to do what it did then be prepared for for future turmoil in the region. For those that it effects I hope for the best.

Israel had the moral justification to be declared a nation as it did so without taking land from any nation as there was at no point in history any independent nation named Palestine. They simply set up a state on land that had been granted to them and the inhabitants (Jew or Arab) would be granted citizenship and really nothing would change other than they would no longer be subjects to the crown. That the Arabs rejected partition is a tragedy and Israel really cannot be blamed for what followed as it was the rejection of partition that led to the present situation.

From the fact you are dodging just about everything I've written in this thread, I can only deduce that you are completely ignorant on this subject and unwilling to engage with facts.



The reason that I avoided it is because I simply didn't wish to go down this road again. First off yes there wasn't a state called Palestine. However Palestinians were overwhelmingly the majority group in the region. If anyone was to be granted a state it should have been them.

2ndly as you say that Palestine never existed neither has the concept behind Zionism. Zionism is a rather contrived belief created by some guy during the late 1800's. Even if it did have historical relevance that doesn't mean that it had to be actualized on land inhabited by another group.

3rdly The terms under which Israel was created were dubious to say the least.

The problem is that your facts here are wrong. The Palestinians were not the overwhelming majority of people in the region. They were the overwhelming majority of the people in the lands granted to them via partition, but not the region. The Jews were in fact the overwhelming majority in the lands that were partitioned for the Jewish state.

It was clear that only partition could work as 1 state was not workable. Starting in the 1920s when Arab nationalism started to take hold, attacks aginst Jews in the land became regular. There were massacres in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. Pogroms like those of the Czars became commonplace in Jewish neighborhoods. It was clear that 2 states would have to be granted to 2 people as making the Jews a minority within an Arab state would be setting them in danger not even 3 years after the Holocaust ended.

Furthermore, when the land was granted to Israel, it was done knowing there were still over a million Jewish refugees stuck in DP camps post Holocaust who had nowhere else to go. It was also done with the knowledge that 900,000 Jews were living as 2nd class citizens in Arab lands and likely to come set-up home.

No Palestinian had to give up his land for partition and those who accepted it still live in Israel as Arab Israelis with more rights than any other Arab in the Middle East. All that partition did is have them no longer be subjects of the British crown and instead be living in a majority Jewish nation, but granting them rights they never had being ruled from London or Istanbul. Once again, no land was "taken" as there was no country to take it from. The people who accepted partition got to stay as they had before and their children are thriving.

As for Zionism, yes the idea of a Jewish state being formed started in the 19th century, but you're ignoring the fact there was a constant Jewish presence in the region. Jews have lived in that land uninterrupted for over 3,000 years. In fact, even before Zionism became a political movement, the Jewish people were the majority population in Jerusalem as early as 1860, over 3 decades before Herzl.

As for how Israel was created, it's hardly dubious. Partition was often the solution when a colonial power left and there were 2 different groups of people who could not be expected to share a country. Pakistan was never an independent country until the British carved it out of India.

Once again, if partition is accepted none of this is being discussed today.



1. I understand that Jewish people have lived in that area for centuries but they were a minority in that region as of 1945. Palestinians outnumbered them by a wide margin. Jewish population was due to vast migration that occurred after WWII.

2. Zionism has been portrayed as this universally held theory that dates back centuries. It is in fact a theory contrived by a guy that believed in the supremacy of Jewish people and the subjugation of Palestinians. The motives behind this theory weren't altruistic either. Proponents of it openly advocated for the destruction of Palestinian people.

3. The land awarded as a result of partition was not equitable in terms of distribution. The majority of land was to be distributed to Jewish immigrants even though Palestinians comprised 65-70% of the population.

At the time Israel was created plans which called for the creation of Palestine were rebuffed.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15018
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Who is doing spin now? :lol:



If there is no empty land to be inhabited then it doesn't. It's that simple. If you aren't going to address Bin Laden or Israel for that matter then again have a good one.

If you think that Israel has moral justification to do what it did then be prepared for for future turmoil in the region. For those that it effects I hope for the best.

Israel had the moral justification to be declared a nation as it did so without taking land from any nation as there was at no point in history any independent nation named Palestine. They simply set up a state on land that had been granted to them and the inhabitants (Jew or Arab) would be granted citizenship and really nothing would change other than they would no longer be subjects to the crown. That the Arabs rejected partition is a tragedy and Israel really cannot be blamed for what followed as it was the rejection of partition that led to the present situation.

From the fact you are dodging just about everything I've written in this thread, I can only deduce that you are completely ignorant on this subject and unwilling to engage with facts.



The reason that I avoided it is because I simply didn't wish to go down this road again. First off yes there wasn't a state called Palestine. However Palestinians were overwhelmingly the majority group in the region. If anyone was to be granted a state it should have been them.

2ndly as you say that Palestine never existed neither has the concept behind Zionism. Zionism is a rather contrived belief created by some guy during the late 1800's. Even if it did have historical relevance that doesn't mean that it had to be actualized on land inhabited by another group.

3rdly The terms under which Israel was created were dubious to say the least.

The problem is that your facts here are wrong. The Palestinians were not the overwhelming majority of people in the region. They were the overwhelming majority of the people in the lands granted to them via partition, but not the region. The Jews were in fact the overwhelming majority in the lands that were partitioned for the Jewish state.

It was clear that only partition could work as 1 state was not workable. Starting in the 1920s when Arab nationalism started to take hold, attacks aginst Jews in the land became regular. There were massacres in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. Pogroms like those of the Czars became commonplace in Jewish neighborhoods. It was clear that 2 states would have to be granted to 2 people as making the Jews a minority within an Arab state would be setting them in danger not even 3 years after the Holocaust ended.

Furthermore, when the land was granted to Israel, it was done knowing there were still over a million Jewish refugees stuck in DP camps post Holocaust who had nowhere else to go. It was also done with the knowledge that 900,000 Jews were living as 2nd class citizens in Arab lands and likely to come set-up home.

No Palestinian had to give up his land for partition and those who accepted it still live in Israel as Arab Israelis with more rights than any other Arab in the Middle East. All that partition did is have them no longer be subjects of the British crown and instead be living in a majority Jewish nation, but granting them rights they never had being ruled from London or Istanbul. Once again, no land was "taken" as there was no country to take it from. The people who accepted partition got to stay as they had before and their children are thriving.

As for Zionism, yes the idea of a Jewish state being formed started in the 19th century, but you're ignoring the fact there was a constant Jewish presence in the region. Jews have lived in that land uninterrupted for over 3,000 years. In fact, even before Zionism became a political movement, the Jewish people were the majority population in Jerusalem as early as 1860, over 3 decades before Herzl.

As for how Israel was created, it's hardly dubious. Partition was often the solution when a colonial power left and there were 2 different groups of people who could not be expected to share a country. Pakistan was never an independent country until the British carved it out of India.

Once again, if partition is accepted none of this is being discussed today.



1. I understand that Jewish people have lived in that area for centuries but they were a minority in that region as of 1945. Palestinians outnumbered them by a wide margin. Jewish population was due to vast migration that occurred after WWII.

2. Zionism has been portrayed as this universally held theory that dates back centuries. It is in fact a theory contrived by a guy that believed in the supremacy of Jewish people and the subjugation of Palestinians. The motives behind this theory weren't altruistic either. Proponents of it openly advocated for the destruction of Palestinian people.

3. The land awarded as a result of partition was not equitable in terms of distribution. The majority of land was to be distributed to Jewish immigrants even though Palestinians comprised 65-70% of the population.

At the time Israel was created plans which called for the creation of Palestine were rebuffed.

all right. Now let's see these points get refuted.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
You've lost, and now you are embarrassing yourself. It reads like a child trying to use a thesaurus to sound intelligent. How did you come to have this non-American worldview btw? Where else have you lived?


To demonstrate weakness you have constantly focused on personal aspects. You couldn't refute what I wrote regarding holy lands so you resort to the tried yet not so true ad hominem.

You have been blistered here. You asked for primary sources and I provided the definitive document which outlined the guys views.

I don't have an "anti-American" worldview but I'm not a fool for this country either. I don't believe in "American exceptionalism". Unlike you and others that post here I don't regard this country as being infallible. You appear to be either ignorant or an apologist neither of which is very good. When guys pooh pooh or ignore mistakes made by America it's dangerous. Thousands of lives have been lost because of idiotic decisions made by guys too stupid or "fanatical" to realize consequences.

You don't have a clue about this stuff and it's obvious that you have never read a book about it. Your posts read like run of the mill right wing talking points. Rush Hannity and Savage would be proud.

If I asked a 6th grader to critique that article he would did a better job than you. I'm certain that they would not have referenced holy lands after reading it. The worse part for you was that it was actually in the guys on own words. Even with that you still were unable to comprehend the material.


It's been refuted. Over and over, but you will not stop lying and acting childish about it. This was the actual title of his first Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4% ... _bin_Laden

You have lied about or ignored the religious aspects of the second Fatwa that you posted, which reference condemning American for not following Sharia law and actually start with quotes from the Koran.

No one is "making excuses for America". That's not even a part of this discussion, which is what was Bin Laden's motivation- the answer is Islam. Otherwise why go to fight the Russians in Afghanistan or condemn the Russia attacks in Chechnya if he only cared about -Arabs as you so daftly claim?

Islam was the guiding force in his life. To say otherwise is simply lying.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
long time guy wrote:


1. I understand that Jewish people have lived in that area for centuries but they were a minority in that region as of 1945. Palestinians outnumbered them by a wide margin. Jewish population was due to vast migration that occurred after WWII.

2. Zionism has been portrayed as this universally held theory that dates back centuries. It is in fact a theory contrived by a guy that believed in the supremacy of Jewish people and the subjugation of Palestinians. The motives behind this theory weren't altruistic either. Proponents of it openly advocated for the destruction of Palestinian people.

3. The land awarded as a result of partition was not equitable in terms of distribution. The majority of land was to be distributed to Jewish immigrants even though Palestinians comprised 65-70% of the population.

At the time Israel was created plans which called for the creation of Palestine were rebuffed.

1: No, the Palestinians in fact were not a majority in the land granted by partition. The lands granted in partition were lands that were significantly a majority Jewish. I already explained why partition was the only option and 1 state for 2 peoples would not work. It could've worked pre-1920, but then the Arabs living there embraced Haj Amin Al-Hussseini and started to attack the Jews. FYI, he would've been the leader of the Arab state so are you rally suggesting in 1948 the Jews should've been put under the control of a radical leader who embraced and met with Hitler hoping he could aid Hilter's final solution had the British not stopped the Germans cold at El-Alamein? That is exactly what you're proposing when you are saying the Jews should've been living in an Arab state in 1948.

Without the Mufti and the violence he started in the 20s, you could argue for 1 state, but he set events into motion that made this impossible and then ran off to ally himself with Hitler as he saw they shared a common enemy in the Jewish people.

2: Zionism as the simple idea that the Jewish people should have a home as it was clear they were not safe anywhere else. Herzl was an atheist who had no racial views. He was a journalist who believed himself to be assimilated until he saw what happened to Dreyfus and realized that if Jews were not safe (living as an assimilated people) in enlightened France, then they were not safe anywhere. I'd say his fears became prophetic 50 years later when 2/3rds of European Jewry was wiped out. It was never based upon an idea the Jews were superior or on the destruction of the Palestinians. In fact, there really was no separate ethnicity known as the Palestinian people then. The Palestinian people as a separate ethnicity was born out in the 60s as before that they were Syrians, Egyptians, etc.

3: The majority of livable land (non-arid) was granted to the Palestinians. Over 60% of the land partitioned for Israel was the Negev, which was empty of all human development. The majority of the fertile land which was considered to be livable was granted to the Arabs.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37090
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
No one wants Israel annihilated...

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
1. I understand that Jewish people have lived in that area for centuries but they were a minority in that region as of 1945. Palestinians outnumbered them by a wide margin. Jewish population was due to vast migration that occurred after WWII.

2. Zionism has been portrayed as this universally held theory that dates back centuries. It is in fact a theory contrived by a guy that believed in the supremacy of Jewish people and the subjugation of Palestinians. The motives behind this theory weren't altruistic either. Proponents of it openly advocated for the destruction of Palestinian people.

3. The land awarded as a result of partition was not equitable in terms of distribution. The majority of land was to be distributed to Jewish immigrants even though Palestinians comprised 65-70% of the population.

At the time Israel was created plans which called for the creation of Palestine were rebuffed.


Seems like LTG believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real and was written by Jews.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
You've lost, and now you are embarrassing yourself. It reads like a child trying to use a thesaurus to sound intelligent. How did you come to have this non-American worldview btw? Where else have you lived?


To demonstrate weakness you have constantly focused on personal aspects. You couldn't refute what I wrote regarding holy lands so you resort to the tried yet not so true ad hominem.

You have been blistered here. You asked for primary sources and I provided the definitive document which outlined the guys views.

I don't have an "anti-American" worldview but I'm not a fool for this country either. I don't believe in "American exceptionalism". Unlike you and others that post here I don't regard this country as being infallible. You appear to be either ignorant or an apologist neither of which is very good. When guys pooh pooh or ignore mistakes made by America it's dangerous. Thousands of lives have been lost because of idiotic decisions made by guys too stupid or "fanatical" to realize consequences.

You don't have a clue about this stuff and it's obvious that you have never read a book about it. Your posts read like run of the mill right wing talking points. Rush Hannity and Savage would be proud.

If I asked a 6th grader to critique that article he would did a better job than you. I'm certain that they would not have referenced holy lands after reading it. The worse part for you was that it was actually in the guys on own words. Even with that you still were unable to comprehend the material.


It's been refuted. Over and over, but you will not stop lying and acting childish about it. This was the actual title of his first Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4% ... _bin_Laden

You have lied about or ignored the religious aspects of the second Fatwa that you posted, which reference condemning American for not following Sharia law and actually start with quotes from the Koran.

No one is "making excuses for America". That's not even a part of this discussion, which is what was Bin Laden's motivation- the answer is Islam. Otherwise why go to fight the Russians in Afghanistan or condemn the Russia attacks in Chechnya if he only cared about -Arabs as you so daftly claim?

Islam was the guiding force in his life. To say otherwise is simply lying.


What led to this Fatwa that you keep referencing? Did he simply wake up one day and say that he was going to start killing Americans? Was Al Queda created to kill Americans? Was jihad declared because he needed a war? Religion could be the. Guiding force but that doesn't mean that it advocates for murder and war.

You and right wing ideologues promote this thinking because it's the only card in the deck that you have to play.

I could easily state that GW was an Islamophobe and a Christian fanatic. After all Chriistianity was the guiding force in his life and he started two wars in Islamic countries. I haven't however.

Bin Laden a Muslim but I don't think his actions were guided by religion. His objections to foreign policy were the primary reason for his actions. He clearly stated it in his letter yet you are accusing me of lying. I provided words which were directly related to actions undertaken. How is that lying?

I will leave it at that.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
No one wants Israel annihilated...

:lol:

long time guy wrote:
Certainly not Bin Laden. He might have been an atheist. It's all subjective.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
No one wants Israel annihilated...


Talking about myself.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
You've lost, and now you are embarrassing yourself. It reads like a child trying to use a thesaurus to sound intelligent. How did you come to have this non-American worldview btw? Where else have you lived?


To demonstrate weakness you have constantly focused on personal aspects. You couldn't refute what I wrote regarding holy lands so you resort to the tried yet not so true ad hominem.

You have been blistered here. You asked for primary sources and I provided the definitive document which outlined the guys views.

I don't have an "anti-American" worldview but I'm not a fool for this country either. I don't believe in "American exceptionalism". Unlike you and others that post here I don't regard this country as being infallible. You appear to be either ignorant or an apologist neither of which is very good. When guys pooh pooh or ignore mistakes made by America it's dangerous. Thousands of lives have been lost because of idiotic decisions made by guys too stupid or "fanatical" to realize consequences.

You don't have a clue about this stuff and it's obvious that you have never read a book about it. Your posts read like run of the mill right wing talking points. Rush Hannity and Savage would be proud.

If I asked a 6th grader to critique that article he would did a better job than you. I'm certain that they would not have referenced holy lands after reading it. The worse part for you was that it was actually in the guys on own words. Even with that you still were unable to comprehend the material.


It's been refuted. Over and over, but you will not stop lying and acting childish about it. This was the actual title of his first Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4% ... _bin_Laden

You have lied about or ignored the religious aspects of the second Fatwa that you posted, which reference condemning American for not following Sharia law and actually start with quotes from the Koran.

No one is "making excuses for America". That's not even a part of this discussion, which is what was Bin Laden's motivation- the answer is Islam. Otherwise why go to fight the Russians in Afghanistan or condemn the Russia attacks in Chechnya if he only cared about -Arabs as you so daftly claim?

Islam was the guiding force in his life. To say otherwise is simply lying.


What led to this Fatwa that you keep referencing? Did he simply wake up one day and say that he was going to start killing Americans? Was Al Queda created to kill Americans? Was jihad declared because he needed a war? Religion could be the. Guiding force but that doesn't mean that it advocates for murder and war.

You and right wing ideologues promote this thinking because it's the only card in the deck that you have to play.

I could easily state that GW was an Islamophobe and a Christian fanatic. After all Chriistianity was the guiding force in his life and he started two wars in Islamic countries. I haven't however.

Bin Laden a Muslim but I don't think his actions were guided by religion.
His objections to foreign policy were the primary reason for his actions. He clearly stated it in his letter yet you are accusing me of lying. I provided words which were directly related to actions undertaken. How is that lying?

I will leave it at that.


You are lying because Bin Laden's own words refute that. This was a man who would not attend events if music was playing because he thought it was an affront to Islam. It's why saying his actions were not related to Islam is a lie. He wanted a worldwide caliphate under Sharia Law. He called for the United States to come to Islam. This is not a discussion of American actions, which were clearly misguided and wrong in many cases. This is a discussion of what Bin Laden's motivation was- religion.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37090
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
No one wants Israel annihilated...


Talking about myself.


long time guy wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:

I find it interesting that the most strident "anti-Zionists" hate the idea of a "Jewish ethno-state" but in wanting Israel annihilated, would have an Arab ethno-state there instead, which is somehow okay, I guess, because they're not Jews.


No one wants Israel annihilated but if you think it is ok to confiscate land that is possessed by someone else then it is you that requires further examination.



Try again.

CH clearly wasn't referencing you.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
No one wants Israel annihilated...


Talking about myself.


long time guy wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:

I find it interesting that the most strident "anti-Zionists" hate the idea of a "Jewish ethno-state" but in wanting Israel annihilated, would have an Arab ethno-state there instead, which is somehow okay, I guess, because they're not Jews.


No one wants Israel annihilated but if you think it is ok to confiscate land that is possessed by someone else then it is you that requires further examination.



Try again.

CH clearly wasn't referencing you.


He has accused me of it previously. I wonder why I wouldn't think he was talking about me this time. Silly me.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37090
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
No one wants Israel annihilated...


Talking about myself.


long time guy wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:

I find it interesting that the most strident "anti-Zionists" hate the idea of a "Jewish ethno-state" but in wanting Israel annihilated, would have an Arab ethno-state there instead, which is somehow okay, I guess, because they're not Jews.


No one wants Israel annihilated but if you think it is ok to confiscate land that is possessed by someone else then it is you that requires further examination.



Try again.

CH clearly wasn't referencing you.


He has accused me of it previously. I wonder why I wouldn't think he was talking about me this time. Silly me.


Because you are not an Arab ethno state.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:36 pm
Posts: 16322
pizza_Place: Il Forno in Deerfield!
City of Fools wrote:
all right. Now let's see these points get refuted.


if you're looking to get educated and are relying on LTG to help with that you're already an idiot and fucked beyond all hope in that regard. Stick to digging ditches.

_________________
LTG wrote:
Trae Young will be a bust. Book It!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
You've lost, and now you are embarrassing yourself. It reads like a child trying to use a thesaurus to sound intelligent. How did you come to have this non-American worldview btw? Where else have you lived?


To demonstrate weakness you have constantly focused on personal aspects. You couldn't refute what I wrote regarding holy lands so you resort to the tried yet not so true ad hominem.

You have been blistered here. You asked for primary sources and I provided the definitive document which outlined the guys views.

I don't have an "anti-American" worldview but I'm not a fool for this country either. I don't believe in "American exceptionalism". Unlike you and others that post here I don't regard this country as being infallible. You appear to be either ignorant or an apologist neither of which is very good. When guys pooh pooh or ignore mistakes made by America it's dangerous. Thousands of lives have been lost because of idiotic decisions made by guys too stupid or "fanatical" to realize consequences.

You don't have a clue about this stuff and it's obvious that you have never read a book about it. Your posts read like run of the mill right wing talking points. Rush Hannity and Savage would be proud.

If I asked a 6th grader to critique that article he would did a better job than you. I'm certain that they would not have referenced holy lands after reading it. The worse part for you was that it was actually in the guys on own words. Even with that you still were unable to comprehend the material.


It's been refuted. Over and over, but you will not stop lying and acting childish about it. This was the actual title of his first Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4% ... _bin_Laden

You have lied about or ignored the religious aspects of the second Fatwa that you posted, which reference condemning American for not following Sharia law and actually start with quotes from the Koran.

No one is "making excuses for America". That's not even a part of this discussion, which is what was Bin Laden's motivation- the answer is Islam. Otherwise why go to fight the Russians in Afghanistan or condemn the Russia attacks in Chechnya if he only cared about -Arabs as you so daftly claim?

Islam was the guiding force in his life. To say otherwise is simply lying.


What led to this Fatwa that you keep referencing? Did he simply wake up one day and say that he was going to start killing Americans? Was Al Queda created to kill Americans? Was jihad declared because he needed a war? Religion could be the. Guiding force but that doesn't mean that it advocates for murder and war.

You and right wing ideologues promote this thinking because it's the only card in the deck that you have to play.

I could easily state that GW was an Islamophobe and a Christian fanatic. After all Chriistianity was the guiding force in his life and he started two wars in Islamic countries. I haven't however.

Bin Laden a Muslim but I don't think his actions were guided by religion.
His objections to foreign policy were the primary reason for his actions. He clearly stated it in his letter yet you are accusing me of lying. I provided words which were directly related to actions undertaken. How is that lying?

I will leave it at that.


You are lying because Bin Laden's own words refute that. This was a man who would not attend events if music was playing because he thought it was an affront to Islam. It's why saying his actions were not related to Islam is a lie. He wanted a worldwide caliphate under Sharia Law. He called for the United States to come to Islam. This is not a discussion of American actions, which were clearly misguided and wrong in many cases. This is a discussion of what Bin Laden's motivation was- religion.



If that's the case then why did his pivot occur immediately after the Persian Gulf War? Bin Laden had no interest in attacking the US prior to that. If he felt that he had to defend Islam or Arabs so what as long as it didn't involve Americans? Living by the teachings of Islam is quite different than seeking to attack the strongest nation on earth.

Again I can show you where American exceptionalism is more pervading of an ideology than anything Bin Laden did. That is the real danger WFR. When Bush seeks to bring American values politics and religion to the Middle East its dangerous. When we base our military inside of Middle Eastern countries it's dangerous. It's a volatile region anyway.

I don't say this to absolve Bin Laden of anything. I just believe that his actions in the region with regard to America were driven by foreign policy and not religion. He'd read a lot of books on American history and policy and he had a fear that America was going to impose it's will inside of the Middle East.

Fatwas and jihad declarations were designed to generate interest among Muslims. He needed converts to the cause. His call to arms was designed to attract followers that ordinarily would not have given a fuck. Bin Laden was never going to get Arabian Govts to openly declare war on the US so he needed guerrilla fighters to join the cause. By making it an attack on Islam as opposed to an attack on the state he would attract more followers.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76675
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
LTG keeps using the term "Palestinian" in an incorrect way. The idea of "Palestinians" as a nation wasn't created until the 60s as a cudgel with which to hammer Jews. In 1945 all the Jews and Arabs who lived within the territory of the British Mandate were "Palestinians".

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
shakes wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
all right. Now let's see these points get refuted.


if you're looking to get educated and are relying on LTG to help with that you're already an idiot and fucked beyond all hope in that regard. Stick to digging ditches.


I guess that explains your idiocy then.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Don Tiny wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
long time guy wrote:
A Jewish State should not have been created on land that was inhabited by other people.


(((Antarctica)))


How would you feel if the Native Americans all of a sudden decided to claim land in this country?

I'd have some reservations.

Wow. Yeah.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 42924
This thread is terrible.

Let's get back to laughing at some dumb rich kid who did something incredibly stupid in a 1984-like nation-state.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Douchebag wrote:
This thread is terrible.

Let's get back to laughing at some dumb rich kid who did something incredibly stupid in a 1984-like nation-state.


It wasn't so great when people thought that either. Maybe you forgot.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:44 am
Posts: 8
pizza_Place: Halal Guys
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
You've lost, and now you are embarrassing yourself. It reads like a child trying to use a thesaurus to sound intelligent. How did you come to have this non-American worldview btw? Where else have you lived?



I inform the proud CFMB members of this board that the author of the above referenced post, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death.

_________________
أصبح كفمب مكان تجمع للمهرجين والفساد.
(CFMB has become a gathering place for clowns and corrupters.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Douchebag wrote:
This thread is terrible.

Let's get back to laughing at some dumb rich kid who did something incredibly stupid in a 1984-like nation-state.


I guess this makes you as racist as I allegedly am :lol:

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 10:54 am
Posts: 260
pizza_Place: V & N
Kind of odd the parents don't want an autopsy. But then again these are the same parents who were unable to convince their kid traveling to North Korea was a dumb idea. Guessing the money for the trip came from them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15018
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
long time guy wrote:

I could easily state that GW was an Islamophobe and a Christian fanatic. After all Chriistianity was the guiding force in his life and he started two wars in Islamic countries.

that is most likely a true statement.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76675
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
City of Fools wrote:
long time guy wrote:

I could easily state that GW was an Islamophobe and a Christian fanatic. After all Chriistianity was the guiding force in his life and he started two wars in Islamic countries.

that is most likely a true statement.



I would never use the fake word "Islamophobe", but I'd agree that it's possible that Bush may be a Christian fanatic. That's a far cry from making Christian evangelism a pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Otto Warmbier
PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:12 pm
Posts: 17947
pizza_Place: 6 characters
This is a really weird thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 418 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group