Gandalf I realise that Islam compels you to put a positive spin on everything your fellow Muslims do and say, but surely there must be some kind of limit.


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 6:36am:

FD wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 8:53pm: freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:08pm: |dev|null wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 1:24pm: Soren wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 10:27am: [quote Sooooo..... why aren't the rich Muslim countries give permanent settlement to Muslim refugees? Because that would legitamise the position of their oppressors.  This way, pressure is kept on, primarily the Zionest creation commonly referred to as Israel.  Why should they be allowed to ethnically cleanse the Middle-East? Soren, you really are a wally, you realise that?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D Abu expressed similar sentiments. Muslims must maintain the suffering and violence in order to legitimise the inevitable war in which Muslims will finally wipe Israel off the map. It's all part of Islam's culture of protecting Jews. Similar, were they? I pressed him on this particular "quote" before. Turns out it was Falah, not Abu, and it was nothing like what he said. It took about 5 seconds of digging to discover that falah actually advocates peaceful coexistence with Israel.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 3:13pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:34pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 9:15am: freediver wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 8:43pm: Abu used to say that Israel's defeat was not merely inevitable, but just around the corner. That's why the Palestinians must never stop the attacks. The destruction of Israel needs to be justified by an ongoing war. If they make peace, they lose their chance. I think it is this mindset that causes the self destructive tendencies of the various Palestinian groups. Would you mind finding a quote? Just curious is all... Sorry, looks like it was mostly Falah - See, Abu is not the only source of this stuff. falah wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 12:32pm: If you don't surrender, you haven't lost. Quote: Falah, what is the difference between refusing to surrender when you have lost so miserably, and not wanting the bloodshed to continue? Do you actually think the Palestinians are on the verge of some kind of victory? It is one thing to sign a peace treaty, another thing to surrender. We have seen what happens to those who made the mistake of surrender History shows us that many wars have looked lost before they swung the other way. It looked like the merciless Crusaders were firmly entrenched in the Palestine when Saladin became leader of Egypt in 1167. 20 years later Saladin had managed to unify the muslims in the region and expel the Christian invaders from Jerusalem. The Crusader occuaption of jerusalem last for 99 years. The Balfour Zionist occupation of Jerusalem has lasted 94 years. In recent years Muslim have freed Sinai, Gaza and southern Lebanon from the Zionist occupation. Since 2000 muslims have managed to force Israel to withdraw from Gaza and southern Lebanon. Full victory is just around the corner by the Grace of God Almighty. Similar sounding rhetoric from Abu: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315637372 Ah, so I'll notch that down as yet another thing that Abu didn't say. Its worthwhile checking these things. Anyway, its a pretty bad example to use. Falah is clearly referring to war only in the context of reclaiming Palestinian land that Israel currently occupies - ie the West Bank. Your baseless claim that he is calling for the destruction of Israel is clearly refuted in subsequent comments: [quote]I believe Israelis can live as good neighbours as soon as they get off stolen Palestinian land.

Quote:

The Israelis can end the violence now by giving the Palestinians their land back. It is simple.

[/quote]


freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:06am:

Quote: Falah is clearly referring to war only in the context of reclaiming Palestinian land that Israel currently occupies - ie the West Bank. Where is this made clear? They guy thinks that the Palestinians are about to have a military victory over Israel - beat them at war. He thinks Israel withdrawing from those patches is a sign of the tide turning in an ongoing war. He sees rocket and terrorist attacks as 'not surrendering' and warns against surrendering.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 10:06am: Where is this made clear? They guy thinks that the Palestinians are about to have a military victory over Israel - beat them at war. He thinks Israel withdrawing from those patches is a sign of the tide turning in an ongoing war. He sees rocket and terrorist attacks as 'not surrendering' and warns against surrendering. Nothing he says indicates he thinks this war entails the destruction of the state of Israel. In fact he infers the opposite by specifying that Israel could be a viable neighbour of Palestine.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

So somehow you managed to go from never surrender and "Full victory is just around the corner by the Grace of God Almighty" to Falah supporting Israel's right to exist? Tell me Gandalf, what you you think Hitler meant by the final solution?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:38am: So somehow you managed to go from never surrender and "Full victory is just around the corner by the Grace of God Almighty" to Falah supporting Israel's right to exist? Sure - until you can show me exactly where falah equates "full victory [etc]" with destroying the Israeli state. How do you explain his insistence that Israel could be "good neighbours"?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 4:30pm: freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 1:49pm: I do not recall him ever saying that. I just gave you the quote. freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 1:49pm: I think he is the one who suggested Jews might be permitted to remain behind (and live as 'good neighbours' - ie obedient, paying the Jizya etc) in an Islamic State. Or maybe he was the one who suggested they go back to Europe where they all came from. Yeah maybe. If in doubt - just invent some crap like you always do with Abu and me. Which quote Gandalf? Please highlight the relevant bit for me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

freediver wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 10:05pm: Which quote Gandalf? Please highlight the relevant bit for me. reply #43 - Israel can live as good neighbours - by falah.

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 3:51pm:

That's not what it says Gandalf. You should have figured this out when your attempt to paraphrase it had such awkward grammar. Do you feel obliged to put a positive spin on the hate filled rants of fellow Muslims?

Do you ever get tired of this routine FD?

What do you think it achieves?

Whats really sad is that you can't even see you refute your own BS with the quotes you post.

Quote:

Abu expressed similar sentiments. Muslims must maintain the suffering and violence in order to legitimise the inevitable war in which Muslims will finally wipe Israel off the map. It's all part of Islam's culture of protecting Jews.

Is obviously refuted by...


Quote:

I believe Israelis can live as good neighbours as soon as they get off stolen Palestinian land.

Now lets behold as FD exercises his legendary mental gymnastics to explain how a country can live as "good neighbours" after they have been "wiped off the map"

He is not talking about a country Gandalf.

Last I checked Israelis are people from Israel.

Can you explain how "Israelis" can live as "good neighbours" - or even exist after their country is "wiped off the map"? Can you find any quote at all from Falah supporting any of the crap you attribute him to (wiping Israel off the map, forcing jews to be "supported" in an Islamic state etc)? Because there's definitely nothing in the quotes you produced in the OP.

FD I realise that your perverted ideology compels you to put a negative spin on everything Muslims do and say, but surely there must be some kind of limit no?

Israelis might be able to live as good neighbours by, for example:

* living next door
* being good
* not dying
* being Arab Muslims (many already are)
* obeying all the oppressive aspects of Islamic law

You are the one rejecting what he actually says at face value and substituting things he does not actually say. You attributed references to Israelis to references to the country Israel. If I said I had an American living next door, or several Americans, it would require some tortuous logic for someone to interpret that as saying I live in Mexico. You invented the bit about his openly hostile remarks regarding Israel being limited to Israeli territory gained after a certain date. There is nothing in what Falah says to indicate he intends such limitation.

It is a classic example of the constant and frantic efforts by Muslims to put a positive spin on what their fellow Muslims get up to.

Gandalf, would you mind highlighting the bit where your fellow Muslim makes it "clear" he is only referring to the west bank?


falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:51pm:

The Palestinian, on the other hand, never invited the Jews to come and rule Palestine. The Jews offer provocation after provocation. Stealing land, stealing more land, bombing civilians. The Jews were offered peace many times but their greed prevented them from ever making a peace deal. Put simply, the Israeli Jews will never make peace because, as their rejection of every peace demonstrates, their greed is overwhelming.

falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:56pm:

Even by 1948, the Jews did not own much land in Palestine as these maps demonstrate:

falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

freediver wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:25pm: falah wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 9:16am: freediver wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 8:19am: Quote: But too I believe Palestinians can exist as neighbours to us. I wonder if Abu and Falah could reciprocate this gesture without qualifying it as temporary or some other silly attempt at deception. I believe Israelis can live as good neighbours as soon as they get off stolen Palestinian land. And go where? Wherever they came from.

Ive got a better idea Fd how about you first show us where he said he wants to wipe Israel off the map? That is after all the specific phrase you attributed to him. Interesting that you dig up all these obscure quotes but nothing actually related to the map wiping claim. Kind of a relevant point seeing as you're lecturing me about falsely attributing things to other people.

Quote:

. If I said I had an American living next door, or several Americans, it would require some tortuous logic for someone to interpret that as saying I live in Mexico

;D and as promised, the legendary mental gymnastics.

For any normal person, what would constitute "torturous logic" would be to interpret a Mexican supporter saying that Americans could be good neighbours if they withdrew from Mexican land (pretending for a moment the US occupied  some part of Mexico), as a call to wipe the US off the map.

At the behest of a grand mufti, amin al husseini, hitler decided to implement the Jewish holocaust based on the methods of the turks in the Armenian holocaust / genocide.

It was a muslim German think tank which oversaw this atrocity 

The Jews can never trust the muslims. (it's as simple as that)

As an aside

Maybe karma is catching up with the Germans as they reap the rewards of the utter stupidity of Angela Merkel in the present.   

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 6:36am:

It took about 5 seconds of digging to discover that falah actually advocates peaceful coexistence with Israel.

I'll give you ten Gandalf.

Here you go Gandalf, show us you skills at spinning these into 'peaceful coexistence with Israel'


falah wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 10:27pm:

Israel will be responsible for its own demise

falah wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 10:50pm:

One day, Israelis will be held accountable for their war crimes.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 9:36pm:

spinning these into 'peaceful coexistence with Israel'

Can I instead show you my skills at interpreting 'Israelis could be good neighbours if they end the occupation' for advocating peaceful coexistence with Israel?

No?

Alright then, lets settle for coming up with even a single quote of Falah (or Abu if you like) saying this:


Quote:

Muslims must maintain the suffering and violence in order to legitimise the inevitable war in which Muslims will finally wipe Israel off the map. It's all part of Islam's culture of protecting Jews.

Are the last two quotes about reaping what they sow and being accountable for war crimes supposed to be it? Whats that again you were saying about skills at spinning?

See the opening post Gandalf.

Do you still think Falah wants peaceful coexistence with Israel?

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 10:36pm:

See the opening post Gandalf.

That was my first reference point for trying to find him saying...


Quote:

Muslims must maintain the suffering and violence in order to legitimise the inevitable war in which Muslims will finally wipe Israel off the map. It's all part of Islam's culture of protecting Jews.

There is literally nothing even remotely related to muslims "wiping Israel off the map". Same with forcing the jews to live as dhimmis in the Islamic state. You inferred it all. That is just a simple fact.

You were caught out FD, I understand your embarassment - constantly being caught out for coming up with fabricated claims about what Abu or Falah said must take its toll. But lashing out with these grudge threads, and not even being able to come up with a single relevant quote to vindicate your crap claims - and even more embarassing, coughing up quotes that are at the very least problematic for your narrative - is probably not the best way to respond.

Gandalf, I hate to tell you but the direct personal experience of my two cousins - two current serving Israeli soldiers - is that the Muslim neighbours want anything but peaceful interactions with Israel.

Daily they come under abuse and violence from the Muslim elements.

Thanks Andrei, I guess thats settled then: based on the testimony of your two cousins, FD's baseless made up crap about what Falah (sometimes known as Abu) suddenly becomes not baseless or made up at all.

Another case closed thanks to a useless and completely irrelevant anecdote from Andrei  :)

Based upon the testimony of direct people involved in the dispute.

You're right Andrei, it really is a stunning revelation. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that occupied people would ever be rude or hostile towards occupation soldiers.

You're making assumptions again.
Both are not in occupying positions but working border checkpoints inside the state of Israel and entrance points with Gaza and the disputed lands to the West of the Jordan river.

So they aren't occupying at all.

Nonetheless I'm sure they are fully justified to throw petrol bombs and rocks.
Peaceful religion isn't it...

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 11:09pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 10:36pm: See the opening post Gandalf. That was my first reference point for trying to find him saying... Quote: Muslims must maintain the suffering and violence in order to legitimise the inevitable war in which Muslims will finally wipe Israel off the map. It's all part of Islam's culture of protecting Jews. There is literally nothing even remotely related to muslims "wiping Israel off the map". Same with forcing the jews to live as dhimmis in the Islamic state. You inferred it all. That is just a simple fact. You were caught out FD, I understand your embarassment - constantly being caught out for coming up with fabricated claims about what Abu or Falah said must take its toll. But lashing out with these grudge threads, and not even being able to come up with a single relevant quote to vindicate your crap claims - and even more embarassing, coughing up quotes that are at the very least problematic for your narrative - is probably not the best way to respond.

How are they problematic Gandalf?

Do you still think Falah wants peaceful coexistence with Israel?

Do you feel compelled to put a positive spin on what he said on account of him being a fellow Muslim?

Quote:

..........Muslims want 'peaceful coexistence' ..........

total nonsense.

As long as muzzies get every demand they make, they will be peaceful.

the only peace you get from muzzies, is when there are none.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 7:04am:

How are they problematic Gandalf?

Are you asking me to explain how his actual words that "Israelis could be good neighbours" is problematic to your allegation - with no evidence - that he asserted that Israel must be wiped off the map?


freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 7:04am:

Do you feel compelled to put a positive spin on what he said on account of him being a fellow Muslim?

No, I'd rather just focus on what he actually said and not spin anything. The truth is I don't hold much regard for anything Falah has said (what I've read), and its quite possible he does want the destruction of Israel. But there is no indication of that sentiment in any of the quotes you have produced. Would you agree that stating that he wants to wipe Israel off the map and not coming up with any relevant quote stating such a thing, and instead basing it solely on words like "total victory" without any explanation of what that actually means - is the very definition of spin?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 11:09pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 17th, 2016 at 10:36pm: See the opening post Gandalf. That was my first reference point for trying to find him saying... Quote: Muslims must maintain the suffering and violence in order to legitimise the inevitable war in which Muslims will finally wipe Israel off the map. It's all part of Islam's culture of protecting Jews. There is literally nothing even remotely related to muslims "wiping Israel off the map". Same with forcing the jews to live as dhimmis in the Islamic state. You inferred it all. That is just a simple fact. You were caught out FD, I understand your embarassment - constantly being caught out for coming up with fabricated claims about what Abu or Falah said must take its toll. But lashing out with these grudge threads, and not even being able to come up with a single relevant quote to vindicate your crap claims - and even more embarassing, coughing up quotes that are at the very least problematic for your narrative - is probably not the best way to respond.

Well yes, but in FD's defence, he's just trying to blame Islam.

What's wrong with that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 10:42am:

The truth is I don't hold much regard for anything Falah has said (what I've read)

Here you go, FD. You can use this quote the next time you want to prove G agreeing with everything Falah (Abu) said because he's a fellow Muslim.

No hard feelings, G, but FD has the best intentions in mind.

He blames Islam.

Something for our USA members to do on Sunday

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/answercoalition/pages/2638/attachments/original/1450727650/march20DCPalestine.jpg?

http://www.answercoalition.org/national_march_on_washington_d_c_to_support_palestine

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 791:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
I heard Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' "

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6981:
Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.

qur'an 5.51: O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.



The stones are going to tell the muslims where the Jews are hiding, so that muslims can kill the Israelites.

Or a rather tame example of islam where the qur'an merely says don't take Jews and Christians as friends.

We've all read the scores of verses which promote irrational islamic hatred and murder of non muslims, apostates and hypocrites.

The truthful premise is:

As long as islam exists there will never be peace on this earth.

Redmond Neck wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

Something for our USA members to do on Sunday https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/answercoalition/pages/2638/attachments/original/1450727650/march20DCPalestine.jpg? http://www.answercoalition.org/national_march_on_washington_d_c_to_support_palestine

What a load of bollocks this is.
Fking "Palestine"....

Quote:

Are you asking me to explain how his actual words that "Israelis could be good neighbours" is problematic to your allegation - with no evidence - that he asserted that Israel must be wiped off the map?

Yes.


Quote:

No, I'd rather just focus on what he actually said and not spin anything.

Did he actually say any of the things you attributed to him?


Quote:

The truth is I don't hold much regard for anything Falah has said (what I've read), and its quite possible he does want the destruction of Israel. But there is no indication of that sentiment in any of the quotes you have produced.

We have landed back on the spin cycle.

Quote:

Did he actually say any of the things you attributed to him?

Yes fd he really did say "Israelis could live as good neighbours". As opposed to saying Israel should be wiped off the map. You seem to be now making a conscious effort to discredited yourself.

Quote:

Did he actually say any of the things you attributed to him

Just in case anyone missed it. Yes, fd really did ask this, in this thread. Right after he lectures about spin.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 6:59am:

Quote: Did he actually say any of the things you attributed to him? Yes fd he really did say "Israelis could live as good neighbours". As opposed to saying Israel should be wiped off the map. You seem to be now making a conscious effort to discredited yourself.

No no, that’s just your Muslim.spin. What you’re really saying is that you agree with Falah, who wants Israel wiped off the map, a jihad against the rest of the world, and a fatwa placed on FD for putting up that Charlie cartoon.

It’s not your fault, G. You don’t understand the example of your sinister prophet. We blame Islam here.

FD wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 6:59am: Quote: Did he actually say any of the things you attributed to him? Yes fd he really did say "Israelis could live as good neighbours". As opposed to saying Israel should be wiped off the map. You seem to be now making a conscious effort to discredited yourself. No no, that’s just your Muslim.spin. What you’re really saying is that you agree with Falah, who wants Israel wiped off the map, a jihad against the rest of the world, and a fatwa placed on FD for putting up that Charlie cartoon. It’s not your fault, G. You don’t understand the example of your sinister prophet. We blame Islam here.

But K the critical point here is that I am compelled to put a positive spin on what my fellow muslims say.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 10:17am:

FD wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 6:59am: Quote: Did he actually say any of the things you attributed to him? Yes fd he really did say "Israelis could live as good neighbours". As opposed to saying Israel should be wiped off the map. You seem to be now making a conscious effort to discredited yourself. No no, that’s just your Muslim.spin. What you’re really saying is that you agree with Falah, who wants Israel wiped off the map, a jihad against the rest of the world, and a fatwa placed on FD for putting up that Charlie cartoon. It’s not your fault, G. You don’t understand the example of your sinister prophet. We blame Islam here. But K the critical point here is that I am compelled to put a positive spin on what my fellow muslims say.

That’s right. You’re brainwashed by that sinister prophet of yours.

Moslem == a follower of Islam.

So why does FD keep asking you questions?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 6:59am:

Quote: Did he actually say any of the things you attributed to him? Yes fd he really did say "Israelis could live as good neighbours". As opposed to saying Israel should be wiped off the map. You seem to be now making a conscious effort to discredited yourself.

What about 'actually promoting peaceful coexistence with Israel'? Or the bit about his violent hostility to Israel being limited to the recapture of the west bank? You said it only took a few minutes of digging to find this.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 9:53am:

What about 'actually promoting peaceful coexistence with Israel'? Or the bit about his violent hostility to Israel being limited to the recapture of the west bank? You said it only took a few minutes of digging to find this.

Correct - it only took a few minutes to find where he said Israelis could live as good neighbours if they removed themselves from occupied Palestinian land. That is the very definition of "peaceful coexistence". Whereas you've been digging for about a week now and haven't produced anything about wiping Israel off the map. That he thinks that the state of Israel can still exist is heavily inferred by his use of the word "Israelis" - ie citizens of the state of Israel. Of course he *COULD* mean "Israelis" to be stateless jews being oppressed under a muslim state, but there simply isn't any evidence to suggest that. Not his use of the words "total victory" or "never surrender" or even "[the occupiers should] go back to wherever they came from".

Quote:

Correct - it only took a few minutes to find where he said Israelis could live as good neighbours if they removed themselves from occupied Palestinian land. That is the very definition of "peaceful coexistence".

Peaceful coexistence is the Israelis going back to wherever they came from?

Would you mind producing the relevant quote?


Quote:

That he thinks that the state of Israel can still exist is heavily inferred by his use of the word "Israelis"

LOL. So long as you ignore everything else right?

It is typical Muslim spin to "heavily infer" his support for peaceful coexistence with Israel from his use of the word Israeli then insist there is nothing contradictory in anything else he said.

Sorry, G, it’s spin. You can only listen to "what Muslims themselves say" when they don’t actually say it.

Remember this in future, okay? It’ll help you to understand things like wiping Israel off the map and executing gays who do it Mardi Gras-style.

You people are so cunning, you know. Whenever a quote’s pulled up it always says the exact opposite of what FD says. How do you do it? I tried Googling taqiyya, but that didn’t give your tricks away either.

Christ!!

I misread it!

I thought Israel was wanting coexistence with those nasty Palos

Sadly there is no hope while this happens

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 2:47pm:

Quote: Correct - it only took a few minutes to find where he said Israelis could live as good neighbours if they removed themselves from occupied Palestinian land. That is the very definition of "peaceful coexistence". Peaceful coexistence is the Israelis going back to wherever they came from? Would you mind producing the relevant quote? [quote]That he thinks that the state of Israel can still exist is heavily inferred by his use of the word "Israelis"

LOL. So long as you ignore everything else right?

It is typical Muslim spin to "heavily infer" his support for peaceful coexistence with Israel from his use of the word Israeli then insist there is nothing contradictory in anything else he said. [/quote]

Yes of course its "typical muslim spin" to not understand how "Israeli could live as good neighbours" is really code for 'wipe Israel off the map'.

You are the only one insisting that Falah's view on Israel's right to exist can be summed up in one sentence where he does not even mention Israel. I have provided plenty of evidence of Falah's hostility to Israel - so much that you felt the need to invent things he said about this hostility being limited to the west bank and occupied territories.

In the 30s you would have been the one telling everyone that Hitler is building holiday camps for Jews.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 9:35pm:

I have provided plenty of evidence of Falah's hostility to Israel

You have indeed. What a shame thats not what we're arguing about.

So getting back to your favourite theme of spin, would you categorise equating "hostility to Israel" to wanting to wipe Israel off the map as a definition of spin? Would you at least agree that taking the position that "Israelis could live as good neighbours" is - at least on the surface - somewhat inconsistent with being hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map?

Finally, do you not think its a little weak to state so categorically that someone wants Israel wiped off the map, and despite what has obviously been a lot of digging, not be able to come up with a single quote saying such a thing? And instead only come up with quotes that indicates that person's hostility towards Israel's occupation and aggression towards its neighbours?

Quote:

So getting back to your favourite theme of spin, would you categorise equating "hostility to Israel" to wanting to wipe Israel off the map as a definition of spin?

I am not saying they are equal. We agree that Falah is hostile to Israel. You invented the bit about it being limited to 'occupied territories', the west bank etc.


Quote:

Would you at least agree that taking the position that "Israelis could live as good neighbours" is - at least on the surface - somewhat inconsistent with being hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map?

Not in Falah's case. See for example his little fantasy about protection of Jews under Muslim rule. He actually used the example of Yemeni Jews to demonstrate this. Or his complaint that the Palestinians never invited the Jews to rule over them. This view is common among Muslims - that the rightful place of a Jew is as a second class citizen in an Islamic State. What bothers them about Israel is not the presence of Jews, but that Jews are in charge, although in Falah's case he apparently also wants to send them back to wherever they came from.


Quote:

Finally, do you not think its a little weak to state so categorically that someone wants Israel wiped off the map, and despite what has obviously been a lot of digging, not be able to come up with a single quote saying such a thing?

I haven't found him using those exact words. But I never claimed he used those exact words. The only reason I went looking for examples was you attempt to spin it into the opposite of what he said.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 10:22pm:

Not in Falah's case. See for example his little fantasy about protection of Jews under Muslim rule. He actually used the example of Yemeni Jews to demonstrate this. Or his complaint that the Palestinians never invited the Jews to rule over them. This view is common among Muslims - that the rightful place of a Jew is as a second class citizen in an Islamic State. What bothers them about Israel is not the presence of Jews, but that Jews are in charge, although in Falah's case he apparently also wants to send them back to wherever they came from.

So what your saying is there is a context to Falah's quotes in the OP, and we can't really be expected to understand the true meaning of those quotes  without knowing that context? And yet, when you were posting those quotes specifically to make a point about how obvious the meaning of them were - it never actually occurred to you to provide any of the necessary context then? Instead you wait until almost 4 pages in before you spill the beans and admit that the OP is completely meaningless without the context which you only now reveal?


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 10:22pm:

The only reason I went looking for examples was you attempt to spin it into the opposite of what he said.

:-? The opposite?? You'll have to explain that to me FD. Look back on the quotes in the OP that you dug up. Even if we ignore the inconvenient sentiments about the possibility of Israelis being good neighbours - he talks non-specifically about zionist occupation, full victory and not surrendering. I opined that he was referring to the occupation of the West Bank. Agree or disagree with that - but how on earth can you rationalise that as "attempt[ing] to spin it into the opposite of what he said"?

What would even be the "opposite" of calling for an end to the occupation of the West Bank anyway?

Talk about spin! 

Quote:

So what your saying is there is a context to Falah's quotes in the OP, and we can't really be expected to understand the true meaning of those quotes  without knowing that context? And yet, when you were posting those quotes specifically to make a point about how obvious the meaning of them were - it never actually occurred to you to provide any of the necessary context then? Instead you wait until almost 4 pages in before you spill the beans and admit that the OP is completely meaningless without the context which you only now reveal?

I could copy and paste the whole thread here Gandalf. Or, you could just follow the link. After all, it was you who claimed that '5 minutes of digging' was all it took to prove your case. I copied what I think are the most relevent/disturbing bits, and included the link with each one. There are more than enough examples in this thread to get the idea.


Quote:

Agree or disagree with that - but how on earth can you rationalise that as "attempt[ing] to spin it into the opposite of what he said"?

You said he "actually advocates peaceful coexistence with Israel", and that you came to this conclusion by "digging" through his posts. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what he promotes.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 8:02am:

You said he "actually advocates peaceful coexistence with Israel", and that you came to this conclusion by "digging" through his posts. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what he promotes.

;D Note the subtle change in language here - from "opposite of what he said" to now "opposite of what he promotes".

This is understandable of course - not even you can sustain the argument that he "said" he wanted to wipe Israel off the map and enslave jews etc on any of the evidence we have so far. So now its downgraded to merely "promoted". This is the mental gymnastics you are forced into when attempting to spin "Israelis could live as good neighbours" as "muslims want to wipe Israel off the map".

And I'm also still wondering how the points I made which amount to:
a) interpreting his calling on the ending of aggression and ending the occupation as a call to end the occupation of the West Bank
b) interpreting his claim that "Israelis could live as good neighbours [if they end the occupation]" as suggesting that the state of Israel and the muslim nations can live peacefully side by side

- can be interpreted as "the exact opposite of what he promotes"

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 8:02am:

I copied what I think are the most relevent/disturbing bits, and included the link with each one. There are more than enough examples in this thread to get the idea.

And yet in just the last post you felt it necessary to introduce a whole swag of new stuff that helps us understand the context of Falah's otherwise vague and non-specific quotes:


Quote:

Not in Falah's case. See for example his little fantasy about protection of Jews under Muslim rule. He actually used the example of Yemeni Jews to demonstrate this. Or his complaint that the Palestinians never invited the Jews to rule over them. This view is common among Muslims - that the rightful place of a Jew is as a second class citizen in an Islamic State.

Funny how none of that is mentioned in the OP.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 3:42pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2016 at 8:02am: You said he "actually advocates peaceful coexistence with Israel", and that you came to this conclusion by "digging" through his posts. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what he promotes. ;D Note the subtle change in language here - from "opposite of what he said" to now "opposite of what he promotes". This is understandable of course - not even you can sustain the argument that he "said" he wanted to wipe Israel off the map and enslave jews etc on any of the evidence we have so far. So now its downgraded to merely "promoted". This is the mental gymnastics you are forced into when attempting to spin "Israelis could live as good neighbours" as "muslims want to wipe Israel off the map".

Well yes, but FD's saying that thread contains all sorts of other spin by Falah that puts all this into perspective. You just need to read between the lines to understand what this Moslem is getting at. As FD says, "There are more than enough examples in this thread to get the idea". FD can't quote them because there are so many. What's wrong with that?

Remember, the FD project - backed up with a Wiki full of FD's words - is all about exposing Muslims "for what they themselves say". FD started the Wiki so Abu and Falah couldn't wriggle out of what they said.

Now he's got you, G, he needs to show what Moslems themselves don't say. What's wrong with that?

If the Muselman won't come out and say it, FD needs to.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 3:52pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2016 at 8:02am: I copied what I think are the most relevent/disturbing bits, and included the link with each one. There are more than enough examples in this thread to get the idea. And yet in just the last post you felt it necessary to introduce a whole swag of new stuff that helps us understand the context of Falah's otherwise vague and non-specific quotes: Quote: Not in Falah's case. See for example his little fantasy about protection of Jews under Muslim rule. He actually used the example of Yemeni Jews to demonstrate this. Or his complaint that the Palestinians never invited the Jews to rule over them. This view is common among Muslims - that the rightful place of a Jew is as a second class citizen in an Islamic State. Funny how none of that is mentioned in the OP.

That's exactly the point. FD needs to say what you people won't say. I'll give you an example in the form of a question.

Do you believe that the rightful place of a Jew is as a second class citizen in an Islamic State?

Of course you do - you're a Moslem. You just wouldn't say this unless FD came out to compel you to.

That's why he asks so many questions. He's getting you to open up and say what you truly think.

If you won't say it, of course FD will. What would you expect him to do - let you people get away with it?

Remember, G, sometimes a question is just a question.

Quote:

Note the subtle change in language here - from "opposite of what he said" to now "opposite of what he promotes".

Wow. You got me there Gandalf. Backflipping again.


Quote:

And I'm also still wondering how the points I made which amount to: a) interpreting his calling on the ending of aggression and ending the occupation as a call to end the occupation of the West Bank

I have no doubt he wants to end the occupatin of the west bank, regardless of what you interpret.


Quote:

b) interpreting his claim that "Israelis could live as good neighbours [if they end the occupation]" as suggesting that the state of Israel and the muslim nations can live peacefully side by side

If that was the extent of what he said, it would be reasonable. But you can only interpret it this way by carefully excluding the bulk of what he said.


Quote:

- can be interpreted as "the exact opposite of what he promotes"

If you pick and choose a few choice phrases from any person, and push the interpretation of them to the limit, you could paint them as saying the opposite of what they think. This is what you are compelled to do with your fellow Muslim.


Quote:

And yet in just the last post you felt it necessary to introduce a whole swag of new stuff that helps us understand the context of Falah's otherwise vague and non-specific quotes:

Actually I believe I have already posted a lot of it here. Again, read the thread instead of demanding I copy and paste the entire thing. Keep going until you satisfy yourself that you shouldn't be defending him. I cannot tell you how long that will take.


Quote:

Funny how none of that is mentioned in the OP.

This thread started with you bragging about your ability to do some digging to find out what Falah really thinks. Are you now saying I tricked you into defending a fellow Muslim without revealing the true extent of their Muslimness?

Sorry, FD, are you saying Falah wants to end the occupation of th e West Bank, or wipe Israel of the face of the map?

Perhaps the US and UN also want to wipe Israel off the map too, eh?

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 6:54pm:

If you pick and choose a few choice phrases from any person, and push the interpretation of them to the limit, you could paint them as saying the opposite of what they think.

Good point FD. Of course in your case, you don't pick and choose any phrase of his to conclude that he wants to wipe Israel of the map and compel jews to live as second class citizens in an Islamic state. You just made that up altogether.

Would you say it is 'heavily inferred'?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 8:27am:

Would you say it is 'heavily inferred'?

That he thinks Israel could exist in peace with muslims is "heavilly inferred" by the words "Israelis could live as good neighbours". Only an FD level of mental gymnastics - or "spin" if you like - can interpret that as being consistent with overrunning the Israeli state and forcing its inhabitants to live as subjects of an Islamic state.

The idea that he says promotes Israel being wiped off the map and jews to become second class citizens under an Islamic state is not "heavilly inferred" by any actual quote of his that you have come up with - not his vague prediction of "total victory", not his call for an end to the occupation, not his prediction that Israel will be accountable for their crimes, and not his call for occupiers to go back to wherever they came from.

So you cannot heavily infer anything from all his references to Israel, but you can heavily infer what he thinks about the state of Israel when he does not actually use the word Israel?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 8:48am:

So you cannot heavily infer anything from all his references to Israel, but you can heavily infer what he thinks about the state of Israel when he does not actually use the word Israel?

What do you infer from UN resolutions saying pretty much what Falah is saying, FD?

I do not recall the UN saying that full victory against Israel is just around the corner, by the grace of God almighty, or that Muslims ought to maintain the violence and killing.

Can you quote them?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 8:55am:

I do not recall the UN saying that full victory against Israel is just around the corner, by the grace of God almighty, or that Muslims ought to maintain the violence and killing. Can you quote them?

Sorry, FD, there's too many. Here's a recent one demanding Israel hand back some of Palestine. There are plenty more.


Quote:

United Nations Security Council resolution 1435, adopted on 24 September 2002, after recalling resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1402 (2002) and 1403 (2002), the Council demanded the end to Israeli measures in Ramallah, including the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure.[1] The Security Council reiterated its concern at events that had taken place in the region since September 2000 and their deterioration, particularly terrorist attacks against civilians in Israel and at a Palestinian school in Hebron. It demanded the end of the occupation of the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat. Furthermore, there was alarm at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities and restrictions on the freedom of movement of people and goods and the need for all to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The resolution reiterated the need for a complete cessation of all acts of violence, demanding that Israel end measures in and around Ramallah and to withdraw occupying forces from Palestinian cities to positions held before September 2000.[2] The Palestinian Authority was called upon to ensure that those responsible for the terrorist acts would be brought to justice. It also supported further diplomatic efforts by the Quartet on the Middle East and others in the region and recognised the initiative adopted at the Arab League Summit in Beirut which stated that peace between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved through the abandonment of the right to return of Palestinian refugees in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and the sharing of Jerusalem.[3] Resolution 1435 was adopted by 14 votes to none against and one abstention from the United States. American representatives John Negroponte and John Cunningham stated that the country would not support a "one-sided resolution" which did not explicitly condemn the terrorists or those who gave them safe haven.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1435

You're right though. The resolutions do not say Allah Uakbar. What do you think Resolution 1435 infers?

I'm still trying to figure out why you think that is "pretty much what Falah is saying". Have you been drinking Gandalf's coolaid?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 9:52am:

I'm still trying to figure out why you think that is "pretty much what Falah is saying". Have you been drinking Gandalf's coolaid?

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone could think Israel shouldn't change its ways to become a peaceful neighbor when the UN Security Council and even the White House demand that it should.

And look at the tone of the language used:


Quote:

The Security Council reiterated its concern at events that had taken place in the region since September 2000 and their deterioration, particularly terrorist attacks against civilians in Israel and at a Palestinian school in Hebron. It demanded the end of the occupation of the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat. Furthermore, there was alarm at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities and restrictions on the freedom of movement of people and goods and the need for all to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

From his quote, I think Falah is being rather restrained about Israel. Of course, you have a lot of other quotes where he's not, no? You just don't want to post them.

But allow me to ask again. What do you think Resolution 1435 infers?

So when you claimed the UN said pretty much the same thing as Falah, you were referring to Falah's effort to explain what the UN said?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 10:39am:

So when you claimed the UN said pretty much the same thing as Falah, you were referring to Falah's effort to explain what the UN said?

What do you think the Security Council is inferring in resolution 1435?

Gandalf, this quote from Falah was in my opening post:


Quote:

The Balfour Zionist occupation of Jerusalem has lasted 94 years.

How does this fit in with your insistence that Falah's hostility to Israel is limited to retaking the west bank?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 10:53am:

Gandalf, this quote from Falah was in my opening post: Quote: The Balfour Zionist occupation of Jerusalem has lasted 94 years. How does this fit in with your insistence that Falah's hostility to Israel is limited to retaking the west bank?

What do you think the Security Council is inferring in resolution 1435?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 8:48am:

So you cannot heavily infer anything from all his references to Israel, but you can heavily infer what he thinks about the state of Israel when he does not actually use the word Israel?

;D You're incredible. Trully you are.

I "heavilly infer" that by "Israeli" he means exactly what Israeli means - a citizen of Israel. Now here's where we get into the spin: apparently your idea of "spin" is to accept that when someone uses a word, they mean something different to what it actually means. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Admit this at least FD: the true meaning of "Israeli" is a citizen of the state of Israel, and by definition, the word cannot strictly be used if the state of Israel does not exist - or as you put it, has been "wiped off the map".

Quote:

Admit this at least FD: the true meaning of "Israeli" is a citizen of the state of Israel, and by definition, the word cannot strictly be used if the state of Israel does not exist - or as you put it, has been "wiped off the map".

So these are the lengths that even progressive Muslims will go to to put a positive spin on the hate filled rants of their fellow Muslims?

Is that all you've got left FD? vacuous ad-hominems?

You're not even bothering with the issue any more.

'Israelis' literally means citizens of the state of Israel - correct? An 'Israeli' then, cannot by definition exist without the existence of the state of Israel. Yet apparently its me whose engaging in spin for accepting that he means what he actually says.

Can you at the very least acknowledge the indisputable fact that your interpretation relies on the assumption that he doesn't mean what he says - ie that when he says "Israelis" he doesn't actually mean "Israelis", but stateless jews living as subjects in an Islamic state - even though he doesn't even mention muslims 'wiping Israel off the map' and forcing jews to live as their subjects?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 1:18pm:

Quote: Admit this at least FD: the true meaning of "Israeli" is a citizen of the state of Israel, and by definition, the word cannot strictly be used if the state of Israel does not exist - or as you put it, has been "wiped off the map". So these are the lengths that even progressive Muslims will go to to put a positive spin on the hate filled rants of their fellow Muslims?

We have your evidence of Falah's inferences, FD. What do you think the Security Council is inferring in resolution 1435?

I've asked you this a number of times. If you don't answer, I'm going to have to do some inferring.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 2:20pm:

Is that all you've got left FD? vacuous ad-hominems?

FD's the new Moses. He'll be calling for death to all Muslims and their apologists next.

Actually, FD has already inferred this.

Actually this entire thread is nothing but a spiteful personal attack: from the outset he mocked me for going to such lengths to put a positive spin on the extreme rantings of my fellow muslims. Its nothing but a de-humanizing exercise - show our hive mind and how sinister we are. Thats really all this thread is about.

The fact that it is such a bitter and spiteful thread probably explains why he put so little thought into his actual argument and ended up shooting himself in the foot with the actual quotes he used in the OP.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 2:20pm:

Is that all you've got left FD? vacuous ad-hominems? You're not even bothering with the issue any more. 'Israelis' literally means citizens of the state of Israel - correct? An 'Israeli' then, cannot by definition exist without the existence of the state of Israel. Yet apparently its me whose engaging in spin for accepting that he means what he actually says. Can you at the very least acknowledge the indisputable fact that your interpretation relies on the assumption that he doesn't mean what he says - ie that when he says "Israelis" he doesn't actually mean "Israelis", but stateless jews living as subjects in an Islamic state - even though he doesn't even mention muslims 'wiping Israel off the map' and forcing jews to live as their subjects?

He means people who are currently citizens of Israel - Israelis. Even I would still call them that if I anticipated the end of the state of Israel. If he called them "stateless jews living as subjects in an Islamic state" instead, we wouldn't know who he was actually talking about. Even "ex-citizens of the no-longer existing state of Israel" would be an unnecessary convolution.

Do you honestly believe the crap you are spinning Gandalf? I would assume this is a windup, but it is hard to tell with Muslims.


Quote:

Actually this entire thread is nothing but a spiteful personal attack: from the outset he mocked me for going to such lengths to put a positive spin on the extreme rantings of my fellow muslims. Its nothing but a de-humanizing exercise - show our hive mind and how sinister we are. Thats really all this thread is about.

No Gandalf, I was merely hoping to get you to stop acting like a Nazi apologist.

Gandalf, this quote from Falah was in my opening post:


Quote:

The Balfour Zionist occupation of Jerusalem has lasted 94 years.

How does this fit in with your insistence that Falah's hostility to Israel is limited to retaking the west bank?

FD, are you a standard bearer?

Is it really plausible that Muslims and gays unite?

by BREITBART LONDON 19 Mar 2016
Thousands of hard-left, ‘anti-racism’ protesters have been bused into London today by a wide array of groups including the British equivalent of ‘Black Lives Matter’, trades unions, Muslim pressure groups, and senior Labour Party representatives.

“All you Muslim people, LGBT people and black people uniting against what? Racism! Are you with me?” opened Lee Jasper, a race relations activist and politician, who served as Senior Policy Advisor on Equalities to the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone.



Are Muslims really on a shared platform with LGBT people and black people? Is opposition to gay marriage racists so Muslims support gay marriage because that's what anti-racist solidarity requires? Are Muslims in favour of gay marriage?

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 3:09pm:

He means people who are currently citizens of Israel - Israelis. Even I would still call them that if I anticipated the end of the state of Israel. If he called them "stateless jews living as subjects in an Islamic state" instead, we wouldn't know who he was actually talking about. Even "ex-citizens of the no-longer existing state of Israel" would be an unnecessary convolution.

Normally someone would feel embarrassed making such absurd leaps of logic, but of course this blind jihad of yours has removed all semblance of rationality. I will however give you full marks for supreme chutzpah.

Also FD, don't you think "neighbour" is a funny way to describe a subject population? If the muslim horde overrun Israel, wipe the state off the map and force the Israelis to become second class citizens of the Islamic state - how exactly can they be "neighbours" of that Islamic state?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2016 at 6:00pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 22nd, 2016 at 3:09pm: He means people who are currently citizens of Israel - Israelis. Even I would still call them that if I anticipated the end of the state of Israel. If he called them "stateless jews living as subjects in an Islamic state" instead, we wouldn't know who he was actually talking about. Even "ex-citizens of the no-longer existing state of Israel" would be an unnecessary convolution. Normally someone would feel embarrassed making such absurd leaps of logic, but of course this blind jihad of yours has removed all semblance of rationality. I will however give you full marks for supreme chutzpah. Also FD, don't you think "neighbour" is a funny way to describe a subject population? If the muslim horde overrun Israel, wipe the state off the map and force the Israelis to become second class citizens of the Islamic state - how exactly can they be "neighbours" of that Islamic state?

You have to understand the FD concept of inference. I’ve tried discussing this with FD, but he stopped talking to me.

Whatever did I say?

Gandalf, do you think the behaviour of Muslims like Falah, and the efforts of Muslims such as yourself to airbrush it will help ease the suffering of the Palestinian people? Is this some kind of joke to you? Why do you think the Palestinian people get so little sympathy from around the world, despite their desperate situation?


Quote:

Also FD, don't you think "neighbour" is a funny way to describe a subject population?

Not if they are next door. If they also happen to behave themselves, they could be considered good neighbours. And if you refrain from killing them, they could even "live as good neighbours". All this interpretation requires is that you take what Falah said at face value.


Quote:

If the muslim horde overrun Israel, wipe the state off the map and force the Israelis to become second class citizens of the Islamic state - how exactly can they be "neighbours" of that Islamic state?

Falah said notyhing at all to indicate he meant neighbouring states. He has said plenty to indicate he meant what is normally implied by the term.

Gandalf, this quote from Falah was in my opening post:


Quote:

The Balfour Zionist occupation of Jerusalem has lasted 94 years.

How does this fit in with your insistence that Falah's hostility to Israel is limited to retaking the west bank?      

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 10:33am:

Falah said notyhing at all to indicate he meant neighbouring states.

Apart from the use of the words "Israeli" and "neighbours" you mean.


freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 10:33am:

How does this fit in with your insistence that Falah's hostility to Israel is limited to retaking the west bank?

lol- Jerusalem is internationally recognised as occupied territory:


Quote:

While the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine. Under the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1947, Jerusalem was envisaged to become a corpus separatum administered by the United Nations. In the war of 1948, the western part of the city was occupied by forces of the nascent state of Israel, while the eastern part was occupied by Jordan. The international community largely considers the legal status of Jerusalem to derive from the partition plan, and correspondingly refuses to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#International_status

Nazi apologists - Falah and the international community alike  ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 10:33am:

Why do you think the Palestinian people get so little sympathy from around the world

LOL - Come again??  :D

Israel, if you haven't noticed, is an international pariah. Apart from the US and Australia and the Marshall Islands, pretty much the entire world is behind the Palestinian cause.

Actually, I doubt if I could think of any group of people who have more sympathy than the Palestinians from around the world. Missed a memo eh FD?

Do you think Falah was only talking about East Jerusalem and his support for the 1947 partition plan?


Quote:

The Crusader occuaption of jerusalem last for 99 years. The Balfour Zionist occupation of Jerusalem has lasted 94 years.

And what about these ones? Do you think Falah might be referring to the state of Israel when he talks about Jews ruling Palestine?


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

Gandalf, would you mind highlighting the bit where your fellow Muslim makes it "clear" he is only referring to the west bank? falah wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:51pm: The Palestinian, on the other hand, never invited the Jews to come and rule Palestine. The Jews offer provocation after provocation. Stealing land, stealing more land, bombing civilians. The Jews were offered peace many times but their greed prevented them from ever making a peace deal. Put simply, the Israeli Jews will never make peace because, as their rejection of every peace demonstrates, their greed is overwhelming. falah wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:56pm: Even by 1948, the Jews did not own much land in Palestine as these maps demonstrate: falah wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:01pm: freediver wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:25pm: falah wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 9:16am: freediver wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 8:19am: Quote: But too I believe Palestinians can exist as neighbours to us. I wonder if Abu and Falah could reciprocate this gesture without qualifying it as temporary or some other silly attempt at deception. I believe Israelis can live as good neighbours as soon as they get off stolen Palestinian land. And go where? Wherever they came from.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 11:11am:

And what about these ones? Do you think Falah might be referring to the state of Israel when he talks about Jews ruling Palestine?

Probably.

So you argument now is that mentioning what very few people disagree was a huge injustice to the Palestinians 60+ years ago is a clear-cut case of calling for the state of Israel to be wiped off the map today? Despite stating that citizens of that same state could "live as good neighbours"?

Tell me again about all the spin going on here FD.


freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 11:11am:

Do you think Falah was only talking about East Jerusalem and his support for the 1947 partition plan?

Not sure FD. Do you reckon the UN and the international community in general are hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map because they too don't recognise any of Jerusalem (east or west) as sovereign Israeli territory?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 11:40am:

Not sure FD. Do you reckon the UN and the international community in general are hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map because they too don't recognise any of Jerusalem (east or west) as sovereign Israeli territory?

Ah yes, the "inference" in all those UN resolutions. You've given FD his answer again, G.

Makes a difference from giving him more questions, no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 11:40am:

freediver wrote on Mar 23rd, 2016 at 11:11am: And what about these ones? Do you think Falah might be referring to the state of Israel when he talks about Jews ruling Palestine? Probably. So you argument now is that mentioning what very few people disagree was a huge injustice to the Palestinians 60+ years ago is a clear-cut case of calling for the state of Israel to be wiped off the map today? Despite stating that citizens of that same state could "live as good neighbours"? Tell me again about all the spin going on here FD.

Here's one from Falah:


Quote:

But too I believe Palestinians can exist as neighbours to us.

And here's another:


Quote:

I believe Israelis can live as good neighbours as soon as they get off stolen Palestinian land.

FD has quoted these as examples of Falah wanting to wipe Israel off the map.

I don't think FD's going to answer your question about spin, G.

Quote:

Not sure FD. Do you reckon the UN and the international community in general are hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map because they too don't recognise any of Jerusalem (east or west) as sovereign Israeli territory?

I don't think they would talk about a Balfour Zionist occupation that has lasted 94 years.

Falah posted this map of Palestine:


Quote:

Even by 1948, the Jews did not own much land in Palestine as these maps demonstrate:

http://asitoughttobe.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/1948-2000.jpg

This was from his next post in the thread:


falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

freediver wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:25pm: falah wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 9:16am: freediver wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 8:19am: Quote: But too I believe Palestinians can exist as neighbours to us. I wonder if Abu and Falah could reciprocate this gesture without qualifying it as temporary or some other silly attempt at deception. I believe Israelis can live as good neighbours as soon as they get off stolen Palestinian land. And go where? Wherever they came from. freediver wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:25pm: What about the ones who didn't steal anything or who legitimately bought their land? If they have not committed crimes, then could keep what they owned.

Tell me Gandalf, does that map of Palestine (the only one I have seen posted by Falah) and the suggestion that Israelis go back to wherever they came from, but the ones deemed to have committed no crime be allowed to keep what they own, suggest a person who support's Israel's right to exist? How do you suppose this judgement of which Israelis have committed a crime and which ones might be allowed to keep what they own would come about, other than by the destruction of the state of Israel?



Here are some more for you:


falah wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 7:48am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 12th, 2012 at 7:42am: falah wrote on Mar 12th, 2012 at 7:29am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 11th, 2012 at 2:49pm: You know we Israelis has no fear of Iran. We show no fear to fly our fighter planes to stop this nuclear program. Israel doesnt have the guts. Iran has direct access to Israel now through their friends Iraq and Syria. Iranian soldiers are already in Syria. Of course, you're forgetting all those Muslim non-Shi'ite states that tacitly support Israel's stand against Iran... Just like all religions, you're no more united than any other... Something converts never really come to terms with... You think anyone in the Middle East will protect Israel? Nobody there likes the colonialists. Everyone in the middleast will be happy when the Zionists return to New York and Russia where they came from.

Falah claimed elsewhere when I pulled him up on the use of the word parasite that he did not inetned to call the Israelis parasites.


falah wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

Who is the beneficiary of the relationship; the US or Israel? Parasitism Parasitism is a type of non mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism

falah wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Without US backing there would be no Israel now.

falah wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:44pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:40pm: Two thousand years of pogroms and victimhood and now, just when the Pallos could have a go, the Jews decide to 'protect' themselves. Quite a protection racket the Zionists have for themselves when they can steal a whole country.

falah wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 18th, 2012 at 10:13am: abu_rashid wrote on Feb 18th, 2012 at 12:16am: Yes insha'allah we will be Zionists. We will saturate the population of all non-Muslim countries until we have overrun them and herded their former inhabitants into refugee camps. Enjoy our Zionism when it lands on your doorstep  ;D For every jew there are 100 muslims in the world. Numbers are not enough. You need to be smart. Ergo, Islam will never dominate. ;D Except for the 1000 years when islam did dominate. The Abbassid Caliphate bigger than the Roman Empire. Muslims only lost power when they started to leave their religion. Now their is an Islamic revival and Israel is soon to be finished.

falah wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 9:55pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 18th, 2012 at 9:07pm: No wonder the jews give thanks every day: "Thank god we have nice people like Jan and the Arabs for enemies". Give me a scholarly link. The Jews are their own worst enemies. They are digging themselves into another hole, after not learning the lesson of the 1940's.

falah wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 9:55am: Bobby the fact Israel was attacked on any number of occasions (including one of their holiest times in the calendar) should probably give you an idea why they are reluctant to rely on anyone other than themselves. What? Arabs attacked Israel? After Israelis went to all the bother of invading and  occupying Arab lands, and murdering and expelling Arab civilians.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PaG-oRPFduY/TiweYiztuXI/AAAAAAAAAAM/1NAXPONTmdc/s1600/map2.jpg


falah wrote on Mar 28^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Because they fought for nationalism instead of Islam. When the Islamic army marches towards Israel there will be no Israel left.

falah wrote on Apr 18^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

The immoral Jewish financial system has been adopted by others. Although Jewish in origin, it is no longer solely in the hands of Jews. They called the shots in WWII when they used the financial system to blackmail the British into supporting a Jewish invasion of Palestine. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Balfour_declaration_unmarked.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration But their control backfired on them when it caused Hitler's rise to power in the wake of the Weimar Republic. Wouldn't want to bin their shoes next time their control backfires.

Do you still think Falah supports peaceful coexistence with Israel?

FD, when Falah talks about Israelis going back to where they came from, he's talking about foreigners moving into Golan Heights - British and Amerikan orthodox Jews and Zionists who move to Israel for this very purpose.

Where does he say Israel should be wiped off the map?

Sorry if this is an offensive question. You have the right to not answer them.

FD I'll hand it to you, after a week or two of tireless digging, you've finally come up with something slightly more incriminating. But thats hardly the point is it - I said all along that its possible falah wants Israel destroyed. All I was saying was there was no evidence of him saying that in the quotes you produced in the OP. And it was totally unreasonable of you to accuse me of sympathising with nazis etc because 'thats what muslims do' - just because I refused to jump to baseless conclusions.

Why should they want a peaceful coexistence with Israel?

---

Watch out, Redneck - you'll be put in the Wiki with G & Falah for saying Israel should be wiped off the map.

FD wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 4:09pm:

Watch out, Redneck - you'll be put in the Wiki with G & Falah for saying Israel should be wiped off the map.

Worse still I will probably get another holiday from Andrei!

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 4:00pm:

FD I'll hand it to you, after a week or two of tireless digging, you've finally come up with something slightly more incriminating. But thats hardly the point is it - I said all along that its possible falah wants Israel destroyed. All I was saying was there was no evidence of him saying that in the quotes you produced in the OP. And it was totally unreasonable of you to accuse me of sympathising with nazis etc because 'thats what muslims do' - just because I refused to jump to baseless conclusions.

It was bleeding obvious from the first lot of quotes I pulled up Gandalf, and it took a devotion to Nazi apologism to read anything else into it - for example that his use of the term Israeli to refer to Israelis in the future context implies his support for Israel's right to exist.

How is the possibility of Falah wanting Israel destroyed consistent with your claim that it only took you a few minutes of digging to discover that he actually promotes peaceful coexistence with Israel?

And what do you mean by "slightly more incriminating"? Are you still holding out hope for your fellow Muslim that this was all just a misunderstanding?

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 4:33pm:

How is the possibility of Falah wanting Israel destroyed consistent with your claim that it only took you a few minutes of digging to discover that he actually promotes peaceful coexistence with Israel?

Obviously I was only looking at the particular thread you referenced. I never rejected the possibility that falah wanted to destroy Israel - in fact for such an extremist, I'd be frankly surprised if he didn't.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 4:33pm:

It was bleeding obvious from the first lot of quotes I pulled up Gandalf

No, it was "bleeding obvious" that he was talking non-specifically about some sort of total victory, while referencing nothing but mainstream arguments about occupation and Israeli aggression. And then lo and behold he says Israelis could be good neighbours.

Forgive me for not interpreting that as the rantings of a raving nazi.

So it has been your position all along that Falah is actually promoting peaceful coexistence with Israel, and it only takes you a few minutes of digging to prove this, but he might also be promoting the complete destruction of Israel, depending on how hard you look?

Hang on - the Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Muslims are two peoples separated by a common religion... pretty much.. the difference is over who chooses whom to be their Prophet... and that includes the Christians in all those areas...

You getting my gist yet?

"Muslims want peaceful coexistence with Israel".

Sure they do.


link

:)

---

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 26^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:

:)

;D ;D ;D