freediver wrote on Apr 30
th, 2021 at 7:30pm:
Quote:Yes, Aussie might not want to kill a Jew or a Muslim, but what about ten million? Or a hundred million? I note that he has evaded that question to date.
No he hasn't. At least, not on killing ten million of them.
Aussie wrote on May 4
th, 2018 at 9:29pm:
freediver wrote on May 4
th, 2018 at 9:11pm:
Aussie wrote on May 4
th, 2018 at 9:09pm:
freediver wrote on May 4
th, 2018 at 9:04pm:
So how many deaths on that battleground would it take to make you change your mind about this being a good idea for world peace? Would 1 million do it?
Not my problem. If an existing citizen of that artificially created State of Israel, after it is moved to Tasmania, elects to stay where they are.....and stateless.......that is their bed to lie in.
How many times do you want me to say that before you actually 'get' it?
How about ten million?
Would you happily precipitate the slaughter of ten million Jews in order to bring about your final solution for world peace?
If ten million citizens (or even one) elect to stay in a land stateless, meaningless, a landscape .....after the State of Israel was moved......
yes, they made their bed, even if it be slaughter.Horse/water.
Perhaps he is still trying to figure out where to round up the extra 90 or so million, once he has wiped out every Jew in Israel, and then some.
Oh, I see. You're referring to Aussie's argument that the sole Israeli claim to its occupied territories lies in the Old Testament. You never could answer that one.
When Aussie posed a hypothetical and asked you what the difference under international law is between the occupied territories and Tasmania, for example, you said he was being wacist.
And what if the Israelies refuse to move?
That's their problem.
Wacist! Murderer! Worse -
genocider!
Then Aussie used someone's dumb Aussie-for-the-Aussies line back at them: "Arabia for the Arabs", and you went on a week-long meltdown that you still haven't gotten over.
Ah, those were the days, eh? G must have been off on one of his holidays away from here and you were desperate for an apologist to score a point against.
But do you know? You never could answer why the Israelis have the lawful right to occupy the territories they seized after 1967.
The old boy tried the Pan-Arabia-started-it line, Aussie batted that one off under international law. Someone else said they won the war, they're the strongest, Aussie said that's not how land title works, or treaty law. Someone else said but Mother and Uncle let them get away with it, Aussie said the UN most certainly did
not let them get away with it, it voted against Israel's new borders. Yadda posted his old Muslim map, pointing out how much land Muslims have, Aussie said it's a national issue, not religious - hence Arabia for the Arabs.
Others started nitpicking - Arabia? That's not a country. Muslims? They don't count. Palestinians?
It all went downhill, as you remember, but you never could address Aussie's point: in a secular world, with no archaeological evidence and only the Torah, why do the Israelis have more right to Palestine than the majority of Arabs who also live there?
You never could say, now could you?
If Aussie answers the hundred million question, FD, you know what to do.
You'll raise it to a billion, no?
Forum
Pages: 
fake lefties who want millions of dead Jews (Read 13290 times)
