BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:59 PM

beardedbruce, you should consider what happened to the Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries to be a direct result of the ethnic cleansing that was being done on the Palestinians (which, by the way, began several months BEFORE Israel's war of independence). By the time Israel declared its independence, several hundred thousand Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed. They fled their homes because the Jewish paramilitaries were committing massacres and other atrocities on Palestinian villages, and they didn't want to be next. And all of that happened months before the war that you say was being waged against Israel (in reality, that war was Arabs defending the area that had been alloted to the Palestinians in the partition plan. Almost all of the fighting took place in areas where Israelis were attempting to take land that had not been given to them in the partition plan). They did not flee out of fear for what other Arabs might do to them. That's another vicious, racist lie.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:49 PM

CarolC,

Yes, they feared for their lives- but as much from what the Arabs threatened to do to them if they cooperated with Israel. Look at the facts- ISRAEL now HAS an significant Arab population: Do the Arab countries that drove out their ( long time) Jewish inhabitants?


Please look at the PERCENTAGE of Arabs who fled Israel vs, the percentage of Jews driven out of the various Arab nations- "Those people fled for their lives. This is perfectly well documented. It's a lie that arises from racism and hatred. This lie is no different in its evilness than lies like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." applies to the Jews driven out AND RESETTLED in Israel: WHY didn't the Arab nations resettle the Palestinians? THEY had the West bank from 1948 to 1967- YET DID NOT ALLOW THE PALESTINIANS to settle there.
The PEACE treaty between Jordan and Israel set the border as the Jordan River- WITH THE WEST BANK under Israeli control. Show me the border that the PEACE treaty with the Palestinians declares.

Oh- THERE IS NO PEACE TREATY. Maybe if the Palestinians spent less time launching rockets into Israel ( NOT disputed territory- ISRAEL as define by the Green line) they might actually have a voice in their own fate. AS LONG as they act in a manner indicating active warfare, there is not likely to be any peaceful solution.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:44 PM

How many times to I have to do this, beardedbruce? I've already done it dozens of times, possibly hundreds. I keep posting them and you keep pretending I've never posted them. What's the point? Read what I've posted for once.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:23 PM

CarolC,

You claim that some statements are lies- Please state how you have determined this. Reference sites, and what YOU consider to be the facts so that others can refute THEM would be nice.

Or should I claim that "Everything CarolC says is a lie, since I don't like what the statements imply about MY viewpoint?"

So, Jews can go back to the Arab nations that they were driven out of. Will they get their property ( taken by the Arab governments) back? You are prepared to protect them, I suppose...

How about the Hindu's who lived in Pakistan? And the Moslims in India who fled? And who counts up all the dead bodies on BOTH sides and decides what is fair?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 07:16 PM

More lies, Teribus. Every one of them. But you need to lie, since what you are trying to defend is indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 07:07 PM

CarolC's model - "I should be able to come to your house and, at the point of a gun, force you to let me live in the entire house except for one of the closets"

Not quite representative is it CarolC.

Now let's see in this totally inaccurate representation CarolC is playing the part of the big bad Zionist Jews, who come into I suppose BeardedBruce's (or the "Palestinians" - Arab, Christian and Jew) house and take it over.

But of course it was never BB's house in the first place was it CarolC? BB was like a sort of tennent, the person who owned the house lock stock and barrel was guy called Otto Man, in fact he'd owned it for ages (centuries in fact). Now Otto was the one who decided who could moved in and whether or not the could own any part of the place. He most certainly was not stupid enough to let the likes of CarolC into the house with guns.

From the 1870's he'd been allowing the likes of CarolC in from outside and selling them all sorts of useless land, which they used to work their arses off to make into things like citrus orchards, or almond and olive groves. Otto Man liked all that because it improved his property and made him loads of money.

Unfortunately Otto had a gambling problem and he lost the house and the new owners assigned somebody to look after it. Of course some of the sitting tennents tried to play the situation for their own advantage and the new owners decided the best way to proceed would be to split the property as much as they could along factional lines. So the house became semi-detatched sort of one house being 75% of the total called "Transjordan" and the other smaller 25% section being called "Palestine" which had been the original name of the whole property.

CarolC still invited people to come and stay, which was OK with the new owners, in fact it had been one of the conditions of transfer of the property from the previous owner. When the Casino (Known as the League of Nations) had agreed to accept Palestine in payment for Otto Man's gambling debt, they insisted that CarolC be allowed to invite in her friends to stay as long as they didn't upset the other residents namely BB most of whose friends now lived in the "Transjordan" part of the house (BB could live in that part of the house but CarolC could not - them was the rules).

BB feels a bit insecure so attempts to get CarolC's arrangement regarding bringing people in cancelled. To do this BB tells all his faction living in the house that CarolC and her lot have been attacking them. If this is believed and there is trouble then just to create peace in the house CarolC will get the heave.

BB fires everybody on his side up, of course they believe him but fail to do a head count otherwise they would have realised that none of them have been killed. They just take his word for it and wade in killing CarolC's pals, try their best to drive them out, robbing them and destroying their bits and pieces.

This sort of continues for about twenty years until the new landlords decide that enough is enough we'll sub-divide "Palestine" into a bit for CarolC and a bit for BB. CarolC is prepared to accept this solution (not surprising as she's been on the receiving end for damn near twenty years). Not good enough says BB we wnat more and we don't want CarolC bringing in any more friends. Damn all to do with you what she does with her bit once the property's divided says the Landlord.

Well as they can't agree there's a ruck and BB's old mates in the other part of the house (Transjordan) see an opportunity to take over BB's bit of "Palestine". However in the ensuing game of poker CarolC sees off the bluff and wins but is more or less prepared to settle for the original split.

BB is still not happy........

Now that is a bit more representative of what happened CarolC, nothing about people coming into a strangers house threatening them at point of gun. Nothing about pushing people into closets.

If you chose to gamble on fighting a war then be prepared to take the consequences when you lose - Exactly as the "Palestinians" did in 1947, 1956, 1967 and 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 06:31 PM

Are you prepared to support opening Jordan for settlement by the Jews who were driven out of Arab nations, and their decendents? If not, WHY should the Arabs who left to clear the way for the Arab armies to attack Israel be entitled to any part of Israel?

This is a lie, beardbruce. Those people fled for their lives. This is perfectly well documented. It's a lie that arises from racism and hatred. This lie is no different in its evilness than lies like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 06:28 PM

beardedbruce, I haven't ignored anything. Like I said before, if you can't be bothered to read my responses to you, why should I make those same responses again?

However, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians started before the Jews were expelled from the other countries. I think those Jews (and their descendents) should be allowed to return to their countries of origin if they want to, but I suspect that won't happen until the Palestinians are allowed to return to the places from which they were ethnically cleansed. I expect it to happen if the Palestinians are allowed to return to their home areas. So if you really care at all whether or not those Jews would be allowed to return to their countries of origin - and I think you don't care at all and would prefer it if they stayed where they are... I think you're just using it as a pretext to support taking land from "Arabs" - but if you really cared, you would support allowing the Palestinians to return to their home areas.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 05:35 PM

CarolC,


http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp


Are you prepared to support opening Jordan for settlement by the Jews who were driven out of Arab nations, and their decendents? If not, WHY should the Arabs who left to clear the way for the Arab armies to attack Israel be entitled to any part of Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 05:30 PM

CarolC,

You continue to ignore the larger number of Jews driven out of Arab nations , and the Jews and Christians driven out of the West Bank when it was in Arab hands ( 1948 - 1967).

Do you intend to say that Jews are not human enough to have the rights to their lands that they have lived in for many generations ( throughout the Arab world) that you insist the Palestinians have?

The lands in Mandate Palestine that were the site of Jewish settlements were bought from the OWNERS in the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Are you claiming that the people who live somewhere have the right to ignore the legal owners?

Why is it that the Arab population of Mandate Palestine is supposed to ( according to you ) get BOTH a "homeland" proportional in area to their population,( with NO JEWS allowed top settle) AND the greater area of the "Jewish Homeland", and STILL be able to send rockets into civilian areas with no protest from you?


I'll tell you what- Let me act like the Arab population has been acting: I will take 75% of the total of the territory that we are supposed to share, and prohibit you from settling there. Then I will demand 75% of the remainder because I don't already have it. Then I will demand 100 % of what is left, and threaten to kill you if you do not give it to me. THEN I will randomly send rockets into your homes.


What, you don't like this idea?

THEN WHY SHOULD THE ISRAELIS????

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 03:32 PM

"Israel has had it's way with the Palestinian people since the beinning" - (Outright lie) - Barry Finn author.

Is there anybody out there who believes that? I most certainly do not, but it is worth investigating.

1. When exactly do you think the beginning was Barry?

2. You mention Israel Barry so that lends one to believe that you think that the beginning was around 14th May 1948. Is that correct? Is 14th May 1948 the begnning? If you think so then you would be wrong wouldn't you, it goes way back before then.

"as the mightyer(sic) of the two they have run rough-shod over them (The Palestinian people) without mercy" - (Outright lie) - Barry Finn author.

Is there anybody out there who believes that? I most certainly do not, but it is worth investigating.

1. So Israel was always the "mightier" of the two was it Barry? Can you explain how? I mean that if you can state with such certainty that the Israelis were always the mightier, then you must have some means of comparison, so you have to know what the arab forces had and what the Israeli forces had.

2. Now when it comes to whom was running rough-shod over whom. Well historically that is rather well recorded. From 1920 to 1936 it was most certainly the Arabs who were knocking seven bells out of the Jews as and whenever the mood took them or do you wish to counter anything said so far. From 1936 to 1939 the score was Arabs 320; Jews 250. Unfortunately for the Arabs the Jews targeted their victims so that when violence then kicked off again on 30th November 1947 the Jews were far better organised, poorer in terms of arms initially, but far better organised. This then continued to be the trend in 1947 - 1949; in 1956; in 1967 & in 1973.

3. The "without mercy" bit is a bit odd. How many rockets have been fired into Israel this year so far from Gaza Barry? How many were fired into Israel from Gaza in 2007 Barry? None of these are targeted, all are fired directly and deliberately at civilian targets. Response is normally strictly focused and targeted at militants and extremely restrained considering the provocation. You doubt that Barry? Then you tell me how many rockets you are going to let somebody fire into your neighbourhood before you react.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM

BTW, using your line of reasoning, beardedbruce, I should be able to come to your house and, at the point of a gun, force you to let me live in the entire house except for one of the closets (where I allow you to live, only allowing you to use the bathroom and kitchen once a day, and not allowing you to leave the house or bring anyone into it without my permission... and I shoot your dog), and if you do anything to try to prevent me from doing this, I can say that you are attempting to impose your will on me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 01:25 PM

YOU are the one who is proposing this arguement, NOT ME. You seem quite happy to have the Palestinians impose their will on others.

If by merely being allowed to remain where they and there ancestors have lived for more than a thousand years, free from colonialist rule, is imposting their will on others, then I guess you're right. But that's still one of the most twisted arguments I've ever seen, and it still says a lot more about you than it does on me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:57 PM

"That's one of the most twisted arguments I've ever seen. I know you're capable of believing such a thing, but I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me. "

YOU are the one who is proposing this arguement, NOT ME. You seem quite happy to have the Palestinians impose their will on others.


That says a lot more about YOU than it does about me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 10:47 AM

Teribus, Israel has had it's way with the Palestinian people since the beinning & as the mightyer of the two they have run rough-shod over them without mercy. I'd say that they've been in the victors position for some time. They've also had the backing & support on the USA. The only wish that they haven't been able to accomplish is that the Palestinian people pack up & go or lay down & die. They've written their own ticket as well as their history.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 10:33 AM

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has warned that the militant group is ready for "open war" with Israel. He has also insisted that in addition to "open war":

"The blood of Imad Mughniyeh will make them [Israel] withdraw from existence."

Now Iran's Revolutionary Guards leader, Maj-Gen Mohammad Jafari, has weighed in predicting the imminent destruction of Israel by fighters from the Lebanese movement Hezbollah:

"We will soon witness the destruction of the cancerous scum of Israel at the strong, capable hands of Hezbollah".

I just can't wait to hear what miracle of misinterpretation, or error in translation our apologists come up with to cover those remarks.

"(by the way if anybody cares - threatening another country is illegal under the UN)." - GUEST,petr - 09 Feb 08 - 05:24 PM

Really??? I await with baited breath to hear you roundly comdemn both Hezbollah and the Iranians for issuing such threats - But guess what we ain't going to see that are we?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:16 AM

"It seems that to the victor goes the spoils, so to the victor also goes the writting of history weither it be real or not. "Israel will continue to right as it might, but it's sword is still covered with the blood of those less fortunate". Carol why bother with these 2, they have no overview or forsight, they haven't even the gift of hindsight?" - (Barry Finn)

The words of a fool or someone in denial of fact.

So Barry with regard to Palestine and the ensuing Arab-Israeli conflict who were the victors? I can see none, although one party seems to have made perpetual misery,designed poverty and violence their only growth industries. No group of refugees in the world has been given so much international aid and done so little with it. By the actions of their own leaders thay have been reduced to the level of the worlds best beggars, condemned to live in ignorance and poverty and that is exactly where their "leaders" want to keep them.

Counter to what you state above many people have written about what has happened in the middle-east and in Palestine in particular. There have been Commissions, Inquiries, right left and centre. The likes of yourself and CarolC deny them all and continue to shove forward the party line that it is all the fault of the Israeli's. Well sorry to disappoint you both but "us 2" (I presume that you refer to myself and BB) will no doubt continue to pull anybody up if they base any arguement on facts that are incorrect.

My contentions, all of which were decried as "lies" by CarolC, within this thread were:

1. That in 1948 Egyptian and Jordanian forces captured land that was formerly part of Palestine and occupied it for 19 years.

2. That conflict between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine was initiated by unprovoked attacks by the Arab population on the Jews. Those attacks occured in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936 to 1939. The attacks were initiated by the deliberate telling of lies designed to inflame Arab opinion and create an atmosphere of terror within perfectly legal Jewish communities in Palestine.

So with regard to those "lies" Barry Finn:

- Are you trying to tell me that the land that became known as the Gaza Strip was always part of Egypt?

- Are you trying to tell me that the land known as the "West Bank" had always been part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan?

- Are you trying to peddle the "myth" that the Jewish settlers at Tel Hai were trying to settle there after having been in legal possession of that land for over 20 years? Are you trying to say that they had no right to be there? If so ould son best get your bags packed because on that reasoning you'd best get your ass back over to the east side of the Atlantic.

- Are you trying to tell us that a couple of dozen Jewish farmers attacked several hundred well armed Bedouin tribesmen? Oh no wait a minute I do believe that CarolC did rather grudgingly admit that it was indeed the Arabs who attacked the Jewish farmers, then trotted out a whole rake of ludicrous mitigating factors to justify their actions.

- Right up until 1937 the only factions applying the "might-is-right" philosophy in Palestine were the Arabs and the British, mostly at the expense and detriment of the Jewish community.

- Are you attempting to tell us that the Jews dispossessed Arabs in the pre-war period I have been discussing? (i.e. the period that marked the start of the conflict). All evidence is against that contention.

- Are you attempting to tell us that the Palestinian Arabs did agree to a two state solution in 1937 and 1947, my contention, sorry lie, was that they rejected both. I think that you will find the record of their response supports my take on things.

The pair of you have a convenient "cut-off" date when looking at what happened in Palestine. I would advise you to look at the whole picture, not just the bit that happens to suit your purpose. Both Bearded Bruce and myself have.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 11:53 PM

I don't really have time for it, Barry, but every now and then I feel that the true history of the region needs an opportunity to come to the surface where people can see it. I'm done for now, though.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 11:22 PM

It seems that to the victor goes the spoils, so to the victor also goes the writting of history weither it be real or not. "Israel will continue to right as it might, but it's sword is still covered with the blood of those less fortunate". Carol why bother with these 2, they have no overview or forsight, they haven't even the gift of hindsight?

"So Israel writes & so fools believe".

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM

So, in stating you wish to impose what YOU consider right upon the people in Israel, regardless of their agreement, YOU are being a supremacist.

You can justify any kind of atrocity at all using that kind of reasoning, beardedbruce.

You are attempting to show that if I say that all people everywhere in the world are equal and that no one has a right to impose his or her will upon others, that makes me a supremacist. That's one of the most twisted arguments I've ever seen. I know you're capable of believing such a thing, but I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 04:26 PM

CarolC,

You state: "because they all believe they are entitled to impose their will on other peoples, regardless of whether or not the other peoples agree with this arrangement. Anyone who believes they have this right is a supremacist. "


So, in stating you wish to impose what YOU consider right upon the people in Israel, regardless of their agreement, YOU are being a supremacist.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:59 PM

Interesting theories starting to go the rounds about the recently late but not lamented Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh. Story goes that he was prodded out of retirement to assist the Iranians (His paymasters) in killing two birds with one stone.

His tasks:

1. Attempt as best to diver the focus in the region away from Irans nuclear activities

2. Assist in the further destabilisation of Lebanon.

Those tasks are what got him out of cover and allowed a dead and departed President of the United States of America to make good a prophecy he made back in 1983 when he paraphrased Jooe Louis 1946 quote in reference to those responsible for the attack:

"You can run, but you cannot hide" - (Ronald Reagan after the Beirut Barracks Bombing).

The Syrians have said that they will shortly announce who it was killed this master terrorist. It will be interesting to see who they name, personally I couldn't care less, the important thing is that he is gone. What with all the international aprobation over the Hariri assassination I wouldn't be surprised if Mughniyeh hadn't been either killed or "fingered" by the Syrians themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:49 AM

By the Bye, CarolC. In telling any tale be it in debate/discussion or under interrogation you can always tell who it is that is telling the truth by the constancy of the story. The truth does not alter, your version of what occured at Tel Hai has changed about three times now and no doubt you will continue to shift ground to suit your rather ludicrous fabrications.

"The Jewish settlers who were trying to establish a presence there were warned by various Jewish authorities to leave the area because the area was not legitimately theirs" - (CarolC)

"trying to establish a presence"?? they'd been farming there for between 20 and 30 years you daft prat, I count that as being fairly well established wouldn't you? I know that most reasonable thinking human beings would.

"the area was not legitimately theirs"?? they'd bought the bloody land from the Ottoman rulers and owners, how on earth could it possibly be construed as not being legitimately theirs??

"Teribus, as well as the European (and US) colonialist powers who decided to impose their will on the peoples of the Middle East, and also the Zionists who decided to dispossess the Palestinians of everything they ever had, and the government of Israel, are all supremacists, because they all believe they are entitled to impose their will on other peoples, regardless of whether or not the other peoples agree with this arrangement. Anyone who believes they have this right is a supremacist." - (CarolC)

Well so far regarding the unjustified and unprovoked attacks by Arabs on Jews at Tel Hai; Jerusalem; Jaffa and surrounding area we see the following:

1. The "Might-is-right" side of the equation and the application of that theory lay entirely on the Arab side.

2. That the property attacked, burned and looted was the legitimate property of the Jews who were subjected to those attacks

3. That not one single "Palestinian" had been dispossessed of as much as an eye-lash.

Hang-on CarolC, what were those "Zionist" supremacists supposed to be doing again? They obviously weren't very good at it in 1920/1921 were they? But they learnt their lessons well a bit further down the track, and in reading into the history of the area we know who they learned those lessons from, don't we CarolC. Survival rule No.1 if attacked you either run or fight, if you chose to fight make damn certain you win. Your enemy may rely on your mercy - you most certainly cannot rely on his.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:08 AM

The Jaffa Riots & The Haycraft Commission:

Jaffa Riots – Occurred between 1st and 7th May 1921

CarolC's Version:
The riots started when two different Jewish groups, one Socialist, and one Communist who were demonstrating, started fighting with each other. Arab Muslims and Christians started helping the police to break up the fights.

What actually did happen:
On the night before 1 May 1921, the Jewish Communist Party (precursor of the Palestine Communist Party) distributed Arabic and Yiddish fliers calling for the toppling of British rule and the establishing a "Soviet Union of Palestine". The party announced its intention to parade from Jaffa to neighbouring Tel Aviv to commemorate May Day.

On the morning of the parade, despite a warning to the 60 members present from one of Jaffa's most senior police officers, Toufiq Bey al-Said, who visited the party's headquarters, the march headed from Jaffa to Tel Aviv through the mixed Jewish-Arab border neighbourhood of Menashia.

Another large May Day parade had also been organised for Tel Aviv by the rival socialist Labour Unity group, with official authorisation. When the two processions met, a fistfight erupted, and the Palestine police chased the communists back to Jaffa.

Please note the following:

1.        At this point, i.e. fist fight finished and illegal protesters chased back to Jaffa, there has not been any riot, and nobody has been killed.

2.        No Arab Muslims or Christians have been involved, unless of course they were members of the Palestine Police Force.

CarolC's Version:
Arabs in other areas misinterpreted what was going on and they jumped in thinking that Arabs were being attacked,"

What actually did happen:
Hearing of the fighting and believing that Arabs were being attacked, the Arabs of Jaffa went on the offensive. Dozens of British, Arab, and Jewish witnesses all reported that Arab men bearing clubs, knives, swords, and some pistols broke into Jewish buildings and murdered their inhabitants, while women followed to loot. They attacked Jewish pedestrians and destroyed Jewish homes and stores. They beat and killed Jews in their homes, including children, and in some cases split open the victims' skulls.

At 1:00 pm, an immigrant hostel run by the Zionist Commission and home to a hundred people who had arrived in recent weeks and days was attacked by the mob, and though the residents tried to barricade the gate, it was rammed open and Arabs attackers poured in. The stone-throwing was followed by bombs and gunfire, and the Jewish hostel residents hid in various rooms. When the police arrived, it was reported that they weren't shooting to disperse the crowd, but were actually aiming at the building. In the courtyard one immigrant was felled by a policeman's bullet at short-range, and others were stabbed and beaten with sticks. Five women fled a policeman firing his pistol; three escaped. A policeman cornered two women and tried to rape them, but they escaped. A fourteen-year old girl and some men managed to escape the building, but each was in turn chased down and beaten to death with iron rods or wooden boards.

As in the previous year's Nabi Musa riots, the mob tore open their victims' quilts and pillows, just like in the Russian pogroms, sending up clouds of feathers. Some Arabs defended Jews and offered them refuge in their homes; many witnesses identified their attackers and murderers as their neighbours. Several witnesses said that Arab policemen had participated.

Please Note the following:

1.        Without any doubt whatsoever you now have a full blown "Riot". You now have blood on the streets, people dead and injured, property looted and destroyed. This only occured after the Arabs decided to wade in without any justification whatsoever. – Not Before.

2.        Any explanation offered as to why there should be any misinterpretation? Could someone possibly of "local" significance have replied, "The Jews are fighting", to the question, "Eh what's up Doc?" Instead of replying more correctly that, "The Jews have been fighting amongst themselves".

3.        Undoubtedly somebody caused people (Arabs) remote from events to believe that Jews were attacking Arabs and that CarolC is what caused the Riot, not Jews fighting each other earlier in the day.

CarolC's Version:
"the Haycroft Commission of Inquiry Report into the Jaffa riots stated that the argument made by some Jews that the cause of the riots was propaganda spread by Arab leaders was not what happened.

The report outlined the causes as being discontent with the government in part due to its policy on the Jewish national home, partly to Arab misunderstandings about the policy, and partly because of the manner in which that policy was interpreted 'by some of its advocates outside the government'. It further reported that there was 'no evidence worth considering' that the Jaffa riots were planned"

What the Haycraft Commission actually did say about the Jaffa Riots:
"The investigative commission headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Palestine, Sir Thomas Haycraft submitted its report and confirmed the participation of Arab policemen in the riots and found the actions taken by the authorities adequate. The report angered both Jews and Arabs: it placed the blame on the Arabs, but said that "Zionists were not doing enough to mitigate the Arabs' apprehensions".
Highlights from the report include:

•        "The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties."

•        "A large part of the Moslem and Christian communities condoned it [the riots], although they did not encourage violence. While certain of the educated Arabs appear to have incited the mob, the notables on both sides, whatever their feelings may have been, aided the authorities to allay the trouble."

•        "The [Arab] police were, with few exceptions, half-trained and inefficient, in many cases indifferent, and in some cases leaders or participators in violence."

•        "The raids on five Jewish agricultural colonies arose from the excitement produced in the minds of the Arabs by reports of Arabs being killed by Jews in Jaffa. In two cases unfounded stories of provocation were believed and acted upon without any effort being made to verify them."

In a speech in June 1921, High Commissioner Herbert Samuel stressed Britain's commitment to the second part of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, declared that Jewish immigration would be allowed only to the extent that it did not burden the economy. In line with this interpretation, Jewish immigration was suspended. This was also done to appease Musa Kazim al-Husseini, who had been dismissed as Jerusalem's mayor on account of his involvement in the previous year's Nebi Musa riots. Those who heard the speech had the impression that he was trying to appease the Arabs at the Jews' expense, and some Jewish leaders boycotted him for a time. The High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel was a great appeaser as was shown later in the 1930's.

Britain's policy and obligation regarding its League of Nations Mandate to re-establish Jewish National Home in Palestine changed to "fixing by the numbers and interests of the present population" the future Jewish immigration. Thus a popular contemporary criticism was that Samuel had revised the Balfour Declaration and Mandate from establishing the Jewish National Home into creating an Arab National Home.

New bloody riots broke out in Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem on November 2, 1921, when five Jewish residents and three of their Arab attackers were killed, which led to calls for the resignation of the city's commissioner, Ronald Storrs.

The "Riots" in May 1921 were not just restricted to Jaffa, fighting went on for several days and spread to nearby Rehovot, Kfar Saba, Petah Tikva, and Hadera.

Let's take a look at those four villages CarolC:

Rehovot:
Rehovot was built on the site of Doron, a Jewish community that existed in the time of the Mishna. The site was also the location of Khirbet Duran, populated during the Roman, Byzantine and early Arab periods. It was founded in 1890 by Polish Jews who wanted a township independent of the Baron Edmond de Rothschild's aid (and management). Israel Belkind, one of the original founders of the settlement, proposed the name Rehovot (lit. 'wide expanses') based on Genesis 26:22 : "And he called the name of it Rehoboth; and he said: 'For now the LORD hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.'" The name was accepted. In 1906 they were joined by immigrants from Yemen.

These early settlers worked hard to make Rehovot the prosperous town it is today. They planted vineyards, almond orchards and citrus groves. Rehovot has become one of Israel's main citrus centers, especially since nearby Ashdod opened its port in 1965. They withstood agricultural failures, plant diseases, and marketing problems.

So land purchased perfectly legally by Jews in 1890. No-one was displaced as a result of this purchase, no other person, or group had any claim whatsoever to this land. So perhaps CarolC can tell us why these people were attacked? In 1890 they had every right to be there, in 1906 they still had every right to be there, ergo in 1921 they still had everyright to be there. Then all attacks against them were unwarranted acts of terrorism designed to do what CarolC? Also please tell us why you seem to approve of those acts?


Kfar Saba:
The land on which the city of Kfar Saba is now located was bought in 1892 by a group of Jewish Zionist settlers, who then offered it for sale to individuals. The acquisition turned out to be unsuccessful, as the land was located in a desolate, neglected area far from any other Jewish settlement. The land was finally purchased in 1896 by Baron Edmond James de Rothschild. In 1903, the Baron sold the land to the farmers of Petah Tikva to be populated by the 2nd generation - the immediate descendants of the farmers. However, they in turn sold the land to others, mostly new immigrants.

The Ottoman government refused to give building permits, therefore the first settlers were forced to live in huts made of clay and straw. They earned their living by growing almonds, grapes and olives. Only in 1912 the settlers moved to permanent housing.

Bought in 1892 eh CarolC, legal transaction, the land desolate and neglected – unwanted, except by some Jewish settlers who were prepared to pay for it and to work it. By 1921, the case had altered a tad hadn't it CarolC? No longer was the land desolate and neglected, it now produced useful crops of almonds, grapes and olives. Now CarolC could that possibly have anything to do with why the Palestinian Arabs wanted the Jews off that land in 1921? – Naw, couldn't possibly could it? – Not bloody much.

Petah Tikva:
Petah Tikva was founded in 1878 by religious pioneers from Jerusalem, who were led by Yehoshua Stampfer, Yoel-Moshe Salomon, Zerach Barnett and David Gutmann as well as Lithuanian Rabbi Aryeh Leib Frumkin. It was the first modern Jewish agricultural settlement in Ottoman Palestine and has since grown to become one of Israel's most populous urban centres.

Originally intending to establish a new settlement in the Achor Valley, near Jericho, the pioneers purchased land in that area. However, the Turkish Sultan cancelled the purchase and forbade them from settling there, but they retained the name Petah Tikva as a symbol of their aspirations.

Undaunted, the settlers purchased a modest area (3.40 square kilometers) from the village of Mulabbis (variants: Mlabbes, Um-Labbes), near the source of the Yarkon River. The Sultan allowed the enterprise to proceed, but because their purchase was located in what was a malarial swamp, they had to evacuate when the malaria spread, founding the town of Yehud near the Arabic village Yehudiyya about 20 kilometers to the south. With the financial help of Baron Edmond de Rothschild they were able to drain the swamps sufficiently to be able to move back in 1883, joined by immigrants of the First Aliyah, and later the Second Aliyah.

Oh dear CarolC, here we have the first modern Jewish agricultural settlement in Ottoman Palestine, not ripped from the hands of struggling Arab peasants but purchased perfectly legally in 1878. They were sold a malarial swamp in 1878, by 1937 it was a city, so I dare say by 1921 there had been some improvements that caused the Arabs to cast envious eyes in its direction.

Hadera:
Hadera was founded in 1891, at the dawn of modern Zionism by Eastern European immigrants who were members of the Zionist group Hovevei Zion on land purchased by Yehoshua Hankin, who was known as the Redeemer of the Valley. The town derives its name from the Arabic word khadra, meaning "green" in reference to the wild weeds which covered the marshes on which the town is built. The first settlers of the town were decimated by nearby malaria-breeding swamps as the city's cemetery bears witness. Initially, Hadera was a lonely outpost of just 10 families and 4 guards but with time others followed and the city has now grown to over 75,000 inhabitants.

Hadera, considered a relatively safe place by its citizens, was jolted by several acts of terrorism over the course of a few years, including a suicide bomber who blew himself up at a falafel stand on October 26, 2005, killing five civilians. However, since the construction of the nearby West Bank barrier, the frequency of such incidents has dropped dramatically. On August 4, 2006, three rockets fired by Hezbollah hit Hadera. Hadera is 50 miles (80 km) south of the Lebanese border and marked the farthest point inside Israel that the terrorist organization hit.

Yet another malarial swamp purchased by Jewish settlers CarolC. No Arab ever gave the place a second look before 1891, maybe on account of the rather unhealthy swamp and all those green "wild weeds". Bit different of course by 1921.

Apparently CarolC there are 42 schools and 15,622 students in the city. They are spread out as 24 elementary schools and 7,933 elementary school students, and 21 high schools and 7,689 high school students.

In 1987 Israel's first Democratic school was started in Hadera, tell me CarolC how many "Democratic Schools" have Hamas and Hezbollah set up in their respective areas? For that matter how many "Democratic Schools" exist in the whole of Iran?

Perhaps it was this school that Hezbollah was attempting to hit on 4th August 2006 eh CarolC? One thing is for certain you would never have uttered one bloody syllable in condemnation of the act if they had succeeded.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 07:27 PM

Teribus, the person who is telling lies has the advantage over the one who is telling the truth, because he can (as you do) throw out dozens of whoppers, and the person who is telling the truth has to spend vast amounts of time showing that they are lies. You are a bald faced liar, but you're very good at using that to your advantage. I have shown many of your lies to be just that... lies. But I do not have time to debunk all of the lies you are capable of putting out there because you have an endless supply of them. However, you have given me the opportunity to expose at least a little bit of the truth that people like you and the other supremacists who believe as you do work so hard to suppress.

That's good enough for me (for now).

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:27 PM

By their complete and utter intransigence and their lack of willingness to listen the Palestinian Arabs created the State of Israel, CarolC nothing else.

It was the Arabs who could not share the land, that most certainly never owned, and after ninety years, all that pointless bloodshed, and all those tears their efforts and scheming has got them absolutely nothing.

The Jews on the otherhand have, despite all the threats and all the attacks, created their country, their State, their Homeland. It is vibrant, healthy and forward looking - it will survive. No matter how many conspire against it and seek her destruction, Israel's enemies should take heed of Psalm 121:4

"Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:23 PM

One last point and then I'm out of here. The Arabs that attacked Tel Hai were irregular forces who were supporters of Faysal who was going to be crowned as monarch in Damascus, although some of them may have been simply outlaws who sometimes conducted raids in areas with a lack of a clear governmental authority. The Jewish settlers who were trying to establish a presence there were warned by various Jewish authorities to leave the area because the area was not legitimately theirs, and Jabotinsky said that the those settlements could not be effectively defended. The settlers chose not to leave despite all of this. That was stupid. Makes a great martyr myth, though, and that's how it has been used ever since.

Also, I misspoke when I said that all of my stuff comes from source material. Most of it does, but some of it does not. Some of it comes from historical accounts by other people who use source material as the basis for their research.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:44 PM

And by the way, beardedbruce, I did provide documentation about the wording on the Jewish homeland. Go back and read the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:42 PM

You still fail to address the FACT that Transjordan, over 75% of the Mandate Palestine territory, was split off to become the ARAB ONLY ( No Jews allowed) ARAB homeland, while the remainder was intended to be the JEWISH homeland ( and where Arabs could still settle and becomne citizens.

Beardedbruce, I have addressed this point, right here in this thread. The part where Jews were allowed to make their homeland was not intended to be a Jewish state. It was intended to be a place where all Jews would be considered natives along with the other natives (indigenous Palestinians). But it was not intended that they should take it over and establish a Jewish state in that area.

The wording was that the Jews would have a homeland within that area, not that that area would be the Jewish homeland.

I have been providing documentation from Israeli government documents as well as other source documents and quotes from the pivotal figures of that time. Teribus only provides material that he gets from sites that it can be proven are telling lies. There's a big difference between these two things. I can provide documentation for everything I've posted here, but I prefer not to while debating with Teribus, since he doesn't see any value in providing documentation for his assertions. Nevertheless, they all come from source material. You can find this stuff out yourself, if you want to.

By the way, on my use of the terms supremacist and 'might makes right'. 'Might makes right is the premise that simply being able to do a thing, by virtue of superior military might, entitles one to do something. Doesn't matter what the morality, ethics, or fairness (or lack of these things) of the thing being done is. The simple fact of being able to do it makes it right for people who subscribe to this philosophy. And a supremacist believes that he or she is entitled to impose his or her will on those who he or she deems inferior.

Teribus, as well as the European (and US) colonialist powers who decided to impose their will on the peoples of the Middle East, and also the Zionists who decided to dispossess the Palestinians of everything they ever had, and the government of Israel, are all supremacists, because they all believe they are entitled to impose their will on other peoples, regardless of whether or not the other peoples agree with this arrangement. Anyone who believes they have this right is a supremacist.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Joseph de Culver City
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:38 PM

The word according to Teribus:

Eh, No, CarolC, you have been ripped to shit on this, your selective, apologist, emotive lies have been torn to shreds.

Just wondering what you have planned for an encore, perhaps crushing a canary or strangling a puppy?

Surprise me... (right!)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:01 PM

"They were defending the borders of their country."

Really? What borders were they? What country? Those nomadic Arab tribesmen had absolutely no concept of borders or country, so what exactly are you rabbiting on about.

"that they wanted to remain a part of the French jurisdiction"

Really? They were in open rebellion against the French under whose rule or guidance they had endured for that seeming eternity of at least, oh I suppose about, 12 months. And you contend that they were wandering around attacking people who had just been in the area peacefully working away for between 20 - 30 years. They obviously weren't in to snap decisions these Bedouin guardians of the soil then CarolC.

"the encroachment of the Jewish settlers who were settling there in order to establish 'facts on the ground', in order to absorb it into what they hoped would become the Jewish state."

Really? So when the land that belonged to those villages was bought 20 to 30 years previously it came along with a crystal ball that told those good people that:
a) There would be a "Great War" between the major European Powers.
b) That the Turks would join the Germans and Austro-Hungarians as allies against the British, French and Russians.
c) That the Turks, along with the Germans and Austro-Hungarians would lose the Great War and that it would cost them all their Empires.
d) That somewhere during that massive and catastrophic upheaval called "The Great War" in 1916 that two fairly minor civil servants an Englishman called Sykes and a Frenchman called Picot would come up with the idea for a National Homeland for the Jews and that a further 30 years down the line from that a State called Israel would be born.

Absolutely unbelievable CarolC - and I do mean absolutely unbelieveable - your contention is utterly preposterous, so completely ridiculous that it is laughable.

"The settlers were trying to help build the state of Israel and it was their intention that this area would become a part of that state. The Arabs in the area didn't want that."

Plain fact of the matter was that when they bought that land they were living under the rule of the Ottoman Empire with absolutely no prospect of anything other than that.

"You keep using incredibly dishonest methods to try to gain the upper hand in this discussion"

Do you mean the application of logic, reason and common sense?

"so there is clearly a wealth of well documented information that you are totally unaware of, and when you try to argue using the propaganda you have fallen for, you just end up making yourself look foolish."

It might seem to be terribly well documented to you CarolC. But only because it states what you want it to. Now go back to that well documented pile of information and come up with articles dated back in the late 1800's and early 1900's that prove Jewish settlers bought land in the knowledge that they were buying land for "Israel".

Its you who are looking increasingly foolish.

"I think I've humiliated you enough on this thread. I've got better things to do with my time."

Eh, No, CarolC, you have been ripped to shit on this, your selective, apologist, emotive lies have been torn to shreds. By the way if you are prepared to come back for more we've still got the Nabi Musa and Jaffa Riots to go through.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:37 PM

CarolC,

You make the statement to T that

"Everything you say on this subject is a lie, Teribus, and I've done a more than ample job of proving it. "

The first part of your statement is opinion, and the second part is false: YOU havee made statements that YOU claim are true, yet have no refernces or evidence. If just stating that something is false makes it so, then YOU would have to accept that it has been stated that you have made false claims.

You state that "you get all of your information from supremacist propaganda websites (and books, no doubt), so there is clearly a wealth of well documented information that you are totally unaware of, and when you try to argue using the propaganda you have fallen for, you just end up making yourself look foolish."

This same statement can be made for your statements: I have yet to find you to refernce a neutral party ( ie, one that does not a priori declare support for the viewpoint you wish to impose).

You still fail to address the FACT that Transjordan, over 75% of the Mandate Palestine territory, was split off to become the ARAB ONLY ( No Jews allowed) ARAB homeland, while the remainder was intended to be the JEWISH homeland ( and where Arabs could still settle and becomne citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 02:47 PM

"nomadic Arab Tribesmen" – Bedouins? – You mean they moved about? How did their villages move about CarolC?

They weren't defending their villages. They were defending the borders of their country.

The borders had not been decided in March 1920 CarolC, in fact they weren't decided until 1923. However In 1919, the British relinquished the northern section of the upper Galilee containing Tel Hai, Metula, Hamrah, and Kfar Giladi to the French jurisdiction.

Precisely. The Arabs in question were defending this land (that they wanted to remain a part of the French jurisdiction) from the encroachment of the Jewish settlers who were settling there in order to establish 'facts on the ground', in order to absorb it into what they hoped would become the Jewish state. The settlers were trying to help build the state of Israel and it was their intention that this area would become a part of that state. The Arabs in the area didn't want that.

You keep using incredibly dishonest methods to try to gain the upper hand in this discussion, but the problem is that you get all of your information from supremacist propaganda websites (and books, no doubt), so there is clearly a wealth of well documented information that you are totally unaware of, and when you try to argue using the propaganda you have fallen for, you just end up making yourself look foolish.

I think I've humiliated you enough on this thread. I've got better things to do with my time.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:38 PM

"Their very presence in the area was a provocation, since they were trying to take land that wasn't theirs. We call taking things that aren't yours 'theft'. Stealing someone else's stuff is a provocation." = Latest bit of arrant nonsense from CarolC.


The Tel Hai Attack:
The Jewish villages that were attacked in the Tel Hai incident, that CarolC dismisses as a product of bone-headed stupidity, were attacked by who CarolC? British troops? French troops? Or was it by Nomadic Arab Tribesmen? – (Teribus)

It was nomadic Arab tribesmen. These tribesmen, by the way saw themselves living in what was supposed to be a part of the French mandate, and they were not happy about the fact that the Jewish settlers were trying to get their villages absorbed into the British mandate. – (CarolC)

Really CarolC? Well I think that there are a number of points to be cleared up here don't you?

1.        "nomadic Arab Tribesmen" – Bedouins? – You mean they moved about? How did their villages move about CarolC?

2.        The borders had not been decided in March 1920 CarolC, in fact they weren't decided until 1923. However In 1919, the British relinquished the northern section of the upper Galilee containing Tel Hai, Metula, Hamrah, and Kfar Giladi to the French jurisdiction.

3.        All those villages mentioned there CarolC were Jewish settlements all legally purchased and settlement of all of them pre-dates the First World War. That makes them whose villages CarolC? The Jews who lived there or the nomadic Arabs who didn't?

4.        These nomadic Arab Tribesmen CarolC. At the time they were in open rebellion against the French.

5.        The Jewish inhabitants of those four villages were making no attempts at all "to get their villages absorbed into the British mandate." I have no idea whatsoever just exactly how they would go about doing that – and I don't believe that you have either.

But here is what happened at Tel Hai – Remember CarolC there had been no trouble or bloodshed at all prior to this:

On 1 March 1920, several hundred Arabs gathered at the gate of Tel Hai, one of four Jewish farming villages in an isolated bloc at the northern end of the Upper Galilee's Hulah Valley.

This was the area of the loosely defined border, between the soon to be established British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Lebanon and of Syria. Throughout this area roamed bands of soldiers, adventurers, and robbers. The Arabs believed that some French troops had taken refuge with the Jews and demanded to search the premises. The Jews generally tried to maintain neutrality in the chaos, occasionally sheltering both Arabs and French. On this day there were no French soldiers, and the Jews assented to a search.
One of the farmers fired a shot into the air, a signal for reinforcements from nearby Kfar Giladi, which brought ten men led by Trumpeldor, who had been posted by Hashomer to organise defensive watches.

It is unclear exactly what happened once Trumpeldor assumed command, but an early report speaks of "misunderstanding on both sides". Ultimately, a major firefight raged, and five of the Jewish defenders were initially killed; Trumpeldor was shot in his hand and then his stomach. A doctor only arrived toward evening, and Trumpeldor died while being evacuated to Kfar Giladi.

Now can you tell me CarolC, you say that "they were trying to take land that wasn't theirs." I presume that you are talking about the Arabs here CarolC, because the people in those villages, the Jews, did own the land, they had title and legal right to it. Or are you attempting to say things were different?

Now I don't know about you CarolC, if several hundred armed men descended all of a sudden on my front door and demanded to search my property I would call that a hostile and threatening act, I also believe that it could also be construed as being extremely provocative. Standing aside and allowing those men to make their search on the otherhand wouldn't equate to being provactive, some would call it downright co-operative and sensible.

Oh by the bye CarolC, somewhere up above there you did actually admit that it was the Arabs that attacked the Jewish villagers didn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:14 PM

Currently on BBC:

"Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has warned that the militant group is ready for "open war" with Israel, after the killing of one of its leaders in Syria.

Nasrallah made the declaration during a fiery speech at the funeral of Imad Mughniyeh in Lebanon's capital, Beirut.

Mughniyeh was killed in a car bombing in the Syrian capital, Damascus, on Tuesday.

Correspondents say the events come at a tense time, with no president and no working parliament.

Mughniyeh's funeral, which Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki is attending, is taking place in the Hezbollah stronghold of the southern suburbs of Beirut.

Speaking to the crowds of mourners via a giant video screen, Nasrallah blamed Israel for his death and said its war against the Jewish state was not over.

"Zionists, if you want this sort of open war, then let the whole world hear, so be it!" he declared.

Nasrallah said that Israel thought that Mughniyeh's death "would lead to the destruction of the resistance... but they are wrong".

He insisted: "The blood of Imad Mughniyeh will make them [Israel] withdraw from existence."

Israel has rejected Hezbollah's claims that it is responsible for Mughniyeh's assassination, but nonetheless has put its embassies and other missions around the world on high alert and boosted troop deployments on the Lebanese border.

Security sources said the alert could remain in force for weeks or even months."

Like I said before:

"Simply a case of the same old game – with the same old result".

Nice to see that the Iranian chap turned out though, must make everybody feel soooo much better. I wonder what the apologists will say that "The blood of Imad Mughniyeh will make them [Israel] withdraw from existence." is a mistranslation of?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM

I most certainly feel such for any group of terrorists or those who support them

No you don't. You condone the terrorists among the Jews who established the state of Israel, and you condone the terrorists among the Jews who became Israelis after it became a state.

Tel Hai - 1st March 1920 Arab attack on Jewish settlers. The attack was unprovoked, and was the first killing in what became a long line of them.

This is a lie. Their very presence in the area was a provocation, since they were trying to take land that wasn't theirs. We call taking things that aren't yours 'theft'. Stealing someone else's stuff is a provocation.

Nabi Musa Riots – 4th to 7th April 1920 second Arab attack on Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. The attacks were totally unprovoked and targeted unarmed civilians. The aftermath and in light of how the British react cause the Jewish community to look to themselves for their own defence - Haganah (meaning "Defence") is formed.

This is a lie. It was provoked. Arriving in someone else's country and trying to take it from them is most definitely a provocation.

Jaffa Riots - 1st and 7th May 1921 third unprovoked Arab attack on Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. Again the attacks were totally unprovoked and targeted unarmed civilians.

Arriving in someone else's country and trying to take it from them is a provocation in every sense of the word.


"However, the facts are that Israel committed numerous acts of terrorism during the period leading up to the time of their declaring independence, killing many civilians and also British government officials in the process For this, they were rewarded with a country." - (CarolC)

August 20, 1937 - June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.

November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants

November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.

July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.

October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.

December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the "Carmel Brigade" attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.

1947 -- 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel's borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the "Israeli Forces" totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble.

January 1, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked a village on the slopes of Mount Carmel; 17 Arabs were killed and 33 wounded.

January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime.

January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.

February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children..

March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa (a 7 story block of apartments and shops) by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured. The Stern Gang claimed responsibility for the incident.

March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.

March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.

April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.

April 16, 1948. Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there.

April 19, 1948. Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists.

May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

April 25, 1948 -- May 13, 1948. Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. They stripped and carried away everything they could, destroying what they could not take with them.


Everything you say on this subject is a lie, Teribus, and I've done a more than ample job of proving it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM

"The entire history of Israel, including the events leading up to Israel's declaration of itself as a country, has been fictionalized by the leaders of that country. You have bought the fiction hook, line, and sinker, Teribus." - (CarolC)

Have I really CarolC? That may well be your opinion, but it most certainly is not borne out in examination of relevant circumstances and events.

"You have also swallowed their hatred of and contempt for Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular." - (CarolC)

"Hatred" and "Contempt" for Arabs CarolC? I most certainly feel such for any group of terrorists or those who support them, but I personally do not hate Arabs in general or feel contempt for them. Oh by the bye CarolC if you want to read what real hatred and contempt for Palestinian Arabs is read what Prince Faisals opinion of them was in 1919.

"It doesn't surprise me, however, that someone with a 'might-makes-right' supremacist philosophy like yours would feel a kinship with those within the Israeli leadership who are your philosophical cousins." - (CarolC)

Now then CarolC I was born and bred in Scotland. Now going back in history the part of the country that my ancestors came from was at war continuously for over 350 years. For much of that time the Scots were on the receiving end of that stick, so we understand all about the "might-makes-right" philosophy. You on the otherhand are American, your forefathers travelled to America from another continent, on arrival they fought, killed, disposessed and having claimed the land of others settled on it, prospered and enjoyed the fruits of their conquest, so you too understand all about "might-makes-right" philosophy - From a slightly different perspective than me - True? So when you come out with your usual emotional claptrap remember that little difference.

"However, the facts are that Israel committed numerous acts of terrorism during the period leading up to the time of their declaring independence, killing many civilians and also British government officials in the process." - (CarolC)

Tel Hai - 1st March 1920 Arab attack on Jewish settlers. The attack was unprovoked, and was the first killing in what became a long line of them.

Nabi Musa Riots – 4th to 7th April 1920 second Arab attack on Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. The attacks were totally unprovoked and targeted unarmed civilians. The aftermath and in light of how the British react cause the Jewish community to look to themselves for their own defence - Haganah (meaning "Defence") is formed.

Jaffa Riots - 1st and 7th May 1921 third unprovoked Arab attack on Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. Again the attacks were totally unprovoked and targeted unarmed civilians.

"However, the facts are that Israel committed numerous acts of terrorism during the period leading up to the time of their declaring independence, killing many civilians and also British government officials in the process For this, they were rewarded with a country." - (CarolC)

Eh, No, CarolC, not quite.

1920 - Arabs attack Jews

1921 - Arabs attack Jews

1923 - Palestine Mandate territories split into "Palestine" where Jews are allowed to settle and "Transjordan" where Jews are not allowed to settle.

1929 - Arabs attack Jews

1936 to 1939 - Arabs attack Jews and British in what becomes known as the Arab Revolt. Good heavens to Betsy, the British and the Jews fight back - Arabs don't like it. Brits are now convinced that Arabs and Jews will never share Palestine so look for alternative scenario.

1937 - British Peel Commission come up with first two state plan. This Plan is accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. This by the way is the best offer the Arabs are ever going to get.

1939 to 1945 - Minor stramash locally known as the Second World War, during which the "leader" of the Palestinian Arabs was best mates with Adolf Hitler. He returns to Egypt at the end of the war a wanted war criminal.

1947 - Former British League of Nations Mandate about to expire so UN proposes a two state solution. The Jews accept and again the Arabs reject it.

1948 - British Mandate expires, no solution so Jews declare independence based on the UN proposal and the State of Israel comes into being. It is immediately recognised by both the United Nations and by the United States of America and welcomed as a member of the United Nations.

I think that the Jews were rewarded with a country because they were willing to live at peace with their neighbours and showed willingness to compromise in order to reach a solution. The Arabs on the otherhand were not prepared to do either. They were still running on the old 1920 war cries of:

"Independence! Independence! Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!" and their other favourite of the time, "Muhammad's religion was born with the sword".

So yes CarolC, after enduring damn near ninety years of their bullshit, "when Palestinians commit acts of terrorism, their homes, women, children, civil infrastructure... all get bombed to smithereens,and they are denied a country because 'we can't reward terrorism'. They know precisely what to do to end it and get on with life, they and only they can do it, it is entirely up to them.

I remember Wolfgang once drawing a comparison of Europe at the end of the Second World War and its problems with refugees and displaced people to the Arab-Israeli thing. He then gave his projection of what Europe would have been like if all Europe's refugees and countries had behaved like the Arabs and the countries of the Middle-East. I found it quite interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:39 AM

The questions were asked because I knew for almost definite that CarolC would not come anywhere close to divulging the truth, mainly because it blows rather large holes in her arguement.

Nice try. No cigar.

The Jaffa Riots - Lies deliberately told by Arab religious leaders about Jewish attacks and the murder of helpless Arabs by the Jews told in order to provoke and inflame the Arab population. Actual truth was that there had been no murders had there CarolC? There had been no attacks had there CarolC. But Arabs did kill and injure Jews in the process of driving them from their homes and looting their property didn't they CarolC. Up until this point there had been no attacks.

More lies, Teribus.

The riots started when two different Jewish groups, one Socialist, and one Communist who were demonstrating, started fighting with each other. Arab Muslims and Christians started helping the police to break up the fights. Arabs in other areas misinterpreted what was going on and they jumped in thinking that Arabs were being attacked, but the Haycroft Commission of Inquiry Report into the Jaffa riots stated that the argument made by some Jews that the cause of the riots was propaganda spread by Arab leaders was not what happened. The report outlined the causes as being discontent with the government in part due to its policy on the Jewish national home, partly to Arab misunderstandings about the policy, and partly because of the manner in which that policy was interpreted 'by some of its advocates outside the government'. It further reported that there was 'no evidence worth considering' that the Jaffa riots were planned

The Commission of Inquiry listed the grievances of the Arabs that led to their feelings of frustration...

1. When Great Britain took over administration of Palestine, it was led by the Zionists to adopt a policy mainly directed towards the establishment of a national home for the Jews, and not to the equal benefit of all Palestinians.

2. In persuance of this policy, the government of Palestine had an official advisory body - the Zionist Commission - which placed the interests of the Jews above all others.

3. There was an undue proportion of Jews in the government.

4. Part of the Zionist program was to flood the country with people who possessed greater commercial and organizing ability which would eventually lead to their gaining the upper hand over the rest of the population.

5. The immigrants were an economic danger to the country because of their competition, and because they were favored in this competition.

6. Immigrants offended the Arabs by their arrogance and by their contempt of Arab social prejudices.

7. Owing to insufficient precautions, Bolshevik immigrants were allowed into the country leading to social and economic unrest in Palestine.

The report also said that the Arabs regarded Jewish immigration not only as an ultimate means to subject the Arabs politically and economically, but also as an immediate cause of Arab unemployment. The commission noted that the Arabs were aware that Jewish predominence was envisaged not only by Jewish extremists, but also by the responsible representatives of Zionism.

Captain Brunton of General Staff Intelligence had this to say about it...

"nothing short of bitter and widespread hostility and the Arab population has some (cause?) to regard the Zionists with hatred and the British with resentment. Mr. Churchill's visit put the final touch to the picture. He upheld the Zionist cause and treated the Arab demands like those of negligible opposition to be put off by a few political phrases and treated like children".

This is what the Arabs had to say about what was being done to them in their own country...

"the Jews have been granted a true advantage, namely that of becoming our rulers. We are to have equal rights of justice with them before theLaw, but they are to have in addition to this the preference in politics and in the economic life of the country, of which the Mandate has seen fit to deprive us.

This was Mr. Churchill's response to the Arabs, and it's a big part of why they were so pissed off. He bluntly informed the Arab leaders that British policy would not change, that it was not in his power to change it, and that even if it were, it was not his wish to do so. Everything I said in my previous post is supported by history and by the facts.


The Jewish villages that were attacked in the Tel Hai incident, that CarolC dismisses as a product of bone-headed stupidity, were attacked by who CarolC? British troops? French troops? Or was it by Nomadic Arab Tribesmen?

It was nomadic Arab tribesmen. These tribesmen, by the way saw themselves living in what was supposed to be a part of the French mandate, and they were not happy about the fact that the Jewish settlers were trying to get their villages absorbed into the British mandate.

It was the latter wasn't it CarolC? How many of them died CarolC? They did succeed in driving the Jewish villagers from their homes in three out of the four villages but at the fourth Tel Hai they stood and fought back. CarolC won't tell you any of this because those nice Palestinian Arabs wouldn't dream about doing anything like that, such an act would be completely beyond them

Please read what I already wrote.I certainly never suggested that it wasn't Arabs who the villagers in Tel Hai were fighting with, nor that Arabs have never killed any Jews.

At the Passover Festival in Jerusalem it was the same story again wasn't it CarolC? Only difference this time it was on a much larger scale wasn't it? They whipped up and inflamed a crowd of between 160,000 and 200,000 Arabs and set them loose to plunder and burn Jewish property. All of it based on lies deliberately told to cause unrest.

As you said, these riots were instigated by the Mufti, Haj Amin, who was put into his position of power by Herbert Samuel, against the wishes of the majority of Arabs at the time. The Mufti also killed a lot of Arabs who tried to resist what he was doing, so the Arabs were victims three times over because of Mr. Samuel installing Haj Amin into his position of power. In the first instance, when their own preferences were overriden when Haj Amin was installed. Then they also were victimized when they resisted him. Then they were victimized when they were (and continue to be) blamed for the things that Haj Amin did against the wishes of the majority of them, like you're doing right now, especially when you try to make it look like his being in league with Hitler is a reflection on Palestinians generally. The fact is that many Palestinians fought on the side of the allies, and very few aligned themselves with the Nazis.

The fact that Herbert Samuel's installing Haj Amin in a position of power has given people like you and the government of Israel a hell of a lot of pretext to try to justify Israel's practice of ethnic cleansing suggests to me that this was his reason for putting Haj Amin in that position of power in the first place. So that makes the Palestinians four times victimized by what Herbert Samuel did. And all of the Jews who were killed during the 1929 riots were victims of Mr. Herbert Samuel's decision as well.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 02:05 AM

Still waiting for you to acknowledge the GREATER ( than Palestinian Arabs)number of Jews driven out of Arab nations, and the ethnic clensing of the West bank ( of Jews) from 1948 to 1967.
Or are you still claiming that only Arabs are really human, and Jews desreve to be screwed over?

No you're not. We've discussed this before. If you can't bother to notice when I respond to these kinds of questions, I don't see why you would expect me to bother to keep responding to them. Check out my posting history and read the responses I've already made.

I have stated before that the Mandate Palestine was divided into Transjordan ( the Arab homeland, with NO Jewish settlement allowed), and "Palestine". the Jewish homeland where both Arabs and Jews could settle. You have yet to show the compensation to the Jews for the land taken as TransJordan, if it is NOT the division of Mandate Palestine that it seems to be.

Why should I show any compensation? I am not suggesting that the Palestinians whose land was taken should be compensated, so there's no inconsistancy.

And if you object to that mandate, are you proposing to throw out the rest of the nations formed by the treaties with Turkey ( as successor to the Ottoman Empire)?

Object to the mandate? Where have I done that? I'm telling you why the indigenous people of the region don't like the way they've been treated, and telling you that this is why they have behaved in the way they have and that it's not because of anti-Semitism in the classical sense, or because of belligerence or intransigence. They have legitimate grievances that have never been addressed, AND the ethnic cleansing of these people is still ongoing.

In addition, you have not addressed the fact that, while there were illegal acts on both sides, the Arab League declared war on the new state of Isreal in 1948, and SOME arabs fled- a number stayed in Israel and are citizens Show me the equal chance given to Jewish residents of Arab nations in 1948, even those who had been there for hudreds or thousands of years, please.

I most certainly have addressed these things. Many times. If you can't be bothered to read my responses, don't expect me to keep making them.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 03:53 PM

CarolC,

Still waiting for you to acknowledge the GREATER ( than Palestinian Arabs)number of Jews driven out of Arab nations, and the ethnic clensing of the West bank ( of Jews) from 1948 to 1967.
Or are you still claiming that only Arabs are really human, and Jews desreve to be screwed over?

I have stated before that the Mandate Palestine was divided into Transjordan ( the Arab homeland, with NO Jewish settlement allowed), and "Palestine". the Jewish homeland where both Arabs and Jews could settle. You have yet to show the compensation to the Jews for the land taken as TransJordan, if it is NOT the division of Mandate Palestine that it seems to be.

And if you object to that mandate, are you proposing to throw out the rest of the nations formed by the treaties with Turkey ( as successor to the Ottoman Empire)?

In addition, you have not addressed the fact that, while there were illegal acts on both sides, the Arab League declared war on the new state of Isreal in 1948, and SOME arabs fled- a number stayed in Israel and are citizens Show me the equal chance given to Jewish residents of Arab nations in 1948, even those who had been there for hudreds or thousands of years, please.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:30 AM

What "fictionalised" book did that lot come out of CarolC?

The questions were asked because I knew for almost definite that CarolC would not come anywhere close to divulging the truth, mainly because it blows rather large holes in her arguement.

The Jaffa Riots - Lies deliberately told by Arab religious leaders about Jewish attacks and the murder of helpless Arabs by the Jews told in order to provoke and inflame the Arab population. Actual truth was that there had been no murders had there CarolC? There had been no attacks had there CarolC. But Arabs did kill and injure Jews in the process of driving them from their homes and looting their property didn't they CarolC. Up until this point there had been no attacks.

The Jewish villages that were attacked in the Tel Hai incident, that CarolC dismisses as a product of bone-headed stupidity, were attacked by who CarolC? British troops? French troops? Or was it by Nomadic Arab Tribesmen? It was the latter wasn't it CarolC? How many of them died CarolC? They did succeed in driving the Jewish villagers from their homes in three out of the four villages but at the fourth Tel Hai they stood and fought back. CarolC won't tell you any of this because those nice Palestinian Arabs wouldn't dream about doing anything like that, such an act would be completely beyond them

At the Passover Festival in Jerusalem it was the same story again wasn't it CarolC? Only difference this time it was on a much larger scale wasn't it? They whipped up and inflamed a crowd of between 160,000 and 200,000 Arabs and set them loose to plunder and burn Jewish property. All of it based on lies deliberately told to cause unrest.

The British once they finally got things back under control carried out an investigation didn't they CarolC? Here's what conclusions they drew:

"The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties."

The guiding light behind all this was Tosser Arafat's Uncle:

"The dominant figure in Palestine during the Mandate years was neither an Englishman, nor a Jew, but an Arab — Haj Amin Muhammed Effendi al Husaini... Able, ambitious, ruthless, humourless, and incorruptible, he was of the authentic stuff of which dictators are made.

The greatest obstacle to his dream coming true, he believed, was the Jewish presence in Palestine. The Mufti's policy towards the Jews seems to have gone through two main stages: first, kill the Zionists, second, kill the Jews.

When he was young he used to work with a native Jew, Abbady, and one of his remarks to him was documented:

Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country.

The Mufti's hatred towards the Jews originated from those roots. He did neither want progress nor prosperity. He just wanted Palestine to continue being the same backward and poor country, as it had been since the Jewish departure in the first centuries CE. Besides his pan-Arab tendencies he saw the Jews as bearers of modern European way of life, which confronted to the most sacred concepts of Islam, at least according to his version. In an interview with one Ladislas Farago he said:

The Jews have changed the life of Palestine in such a way that it must inevitably lead to the destruction of our race. We are not accustomed to this haste and speed, and therefore we are continually being driven into the background.

At first, his policy was to fight or massacre the Zionists, which he most notably achieved in the riots of 1920 and 1929 and later the 1936-1939 rebellion. However, when he realised that the Jews kept on flocking into the country, he thought the best way to deal with the Jewish problem was to dry up the source in Europe.

When he had to make a run for it during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, he found his perfect partner in Europe didn't he CarolC? A kindred spirit who was also - able, ambitious, ruthless, humourless, and incorruptible, someone who most definitely was of the authentic stuff of which dictators are made - a little Austrian chap with a funny moustache if memory serves me correctly - CarolC would be able to tell you his name - Adolf Hitler wasn't it CarolC?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 03:34 AM

Part of this fictionalised account CarolC - Tell us why the Arabs rioted in Jerusalem in March 1920? Tell us why they killed six Jews and injured 200 more? Tell us why they robbed and looted Jewish property?

Because they were being squeezed out of their own country by colonialist Europeans, and they knew it. They knew that the plan was to squeeze out or remove all of the non-Jewish indigenous population, and at that time, the consequence of this for the non-Jewish Palestinians was that they were being disposessed of their homes and their livelihoods, and they were quite understandably not happy about it.

Tel Hai was a product of bone-headed stupidity. The people there were settling on land that was in a border area between the British and French forces. The settlers were there in order to establish 'facts on the ground', but without any clear rights to be doing so, since there were questions about whether or not that area was within the British Mandate territory. They were attempting to gobble up as much territory, especially as much territory containing the watershed of the Jordan river as possible, and they were pushing boundaries in ways that caused a lot of friction between settlers and indigenous Arabs.

They were warned that they should leave that region and go somewhere safe until the situation was stabilized. The settlers in nearby settlements did evacuate. The settlers in Tel Hai chose not to, despite being instructed to do so. Eight Jews were killed in the battle. This event was used for propagandistic purposes afterwards, however, and was elevated to the status of legend to embody a principle of sacrifice in the name of 'redeeming the land' (a polite way of saying 'taking land from others').

I stand corrected on the airplane hijacking.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:18 AM

So Israeli's committed the first airplane hijacking in the history of aviation did they CarolC?

Really wonder what this was then?

"The first recorded aircraft hijack was on February 21, 1931, in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards flying a Ford Tri-Motor was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one of their number a lift to Lima."

So those revolting people in Arequipa, Peru, in February 1931 were Israeli's were they CarolC?? - Don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:10 AM

Part of this fictionalised account CarolC - Tell us why the Arabs rioted in Jerusalem in March 1920? Tell us why they killed six Jews and injured 200 more? Tell us why they robbed and looted Jewish property?

Tell us what happened one month later in April at Tel Hai.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:55 PM

A different view, reported in the International Herald Tribune:

"TEHRAN: When the shah ruled Iran, the Westernized elite would enjoy Hollywood movies at a small theater in the center of the city. Today, that theater is an Islamic cultural center and a meeting place for fundamentalists.

So it was a bit of a surprise that in the gift shop, where everything was infused with a religious theme, the best selling items last week were American children's movies: "Rugrats Go Wild," "Meet the Robinsons" and "The Incredibles." All bootlegged, of course, and each for $1.50.

"Yes, we sell a lot of these," said Amin Gorbani, a young bearded clerk at the cash register. And then he stood up, extended his hand and said: "When it comes to disputes between Iran and America, that is between governments. But when it comes to people, I don't see any problem between the people."

As Iran on Monday commemorated the 29th anniversary of its revolution, America's image in the Middle East is arguably as low as it has ever been. From the occupation of Iraq to the Israeli bombing of Lebanon to the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the United States has been cited in polls as the gravest threat to peace in the region. But Iran is different, even the Iran of bearded fundamentalists like Gorbani.

Generally speaking, Iranians like Americans, not just American products, which remain very popular, but Americans. While that is not entirely new - Iranians on an individual level have long expressed desires to restore relations between the two countries - the sentiment seems much more out in the open now.

Today in Africa & Middle East
Many in Iran bear the U.S. no ill willGates supports a pause in U.S. troop withdrawals from IraqCritique of postwar Iraq planning stifled by U.S. Army
It is spreading not just on the streets of Tehran, but in the way politicians talk. A former student hostage taker; the mayor of Tehran; even the supreme leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have said it was not out of the question to someday restore relations with the United States.

That change of tone, combined with Khamenei's recent mild criticism of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government, seems to have given Iranians license to express their frustration with their situation and their longing for normal relations.

They do not necessarily see themselves as having any connection to the extreme radical ideas of their leaders, whether in religious or geopolitical terms, and calculate that Americans are equally disconnected from their leaders' decisions, political and social analysts said.

"I think the problem we have with the Americans is the way Americans perceive Iran as a threat, as a rogue state," said Masoumeh Ebtekar, a member of the Tehran City Council who served as a spokeswoman for the students who stormed the U.S. Embassy and seized 52 hostages in 1979. "This perception has to change. I believe if they understand who we really are, the basis for reconciliation will be based on respect and equality."

She framed the conflict as a matter of perception, of misunderstanding. But there was a time when such talk was seen as subversive. Now, there is Baskin-Robbins. Not the real Baskin-Robbins, apparently, but an Iranian bootleg version with its own display of 31 flavors.

"I used to be the one who chanted death to America," said Abolfazl Emami, owner of the ice-cream shop in Mohseeni Square. "It was a slogan that came up during the revolution. People don't mean it now."

With a smile and his hand raised in the air he said: "I like American goods, and I prefer American people. It's just the government I don't like."

It may be hard to reconcile the images of men punching their fists into the air and chanting "Death to America" with a man serving scoops of peanut-butter chocolate ice cream in pink paper cups and sugar cones. But it is in some ways a measure of how distant many Iranians feel from the radical government of Ahmadinejad. ... "

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 02:22 PM

that is pretty convoluted logic..

ask any Iranian what happened in 1953 and they will tell you.
Its not ancient history to them.

But your argument to the point that US overthrew a democratically elected govt. (thus sowing seeds of US resentment) is..?

that Savak wasnt anywhere near as bad as Khomeinis Revolutionary GUard..
They only tortured and killed thousands.

Your logic collapses in ridicule.

as far as North Korea - China no more controls Kim than Brezhnev controlled Ceaucescu. The NKoreans did what was expected after the invasion of Iraq. - they withdrew from the NPT and spurred development of the bomb.. -the US on the other hand refused to negotiate for years
(eventually when they did - NK gets fuel oil, and as a bonus gets to keep the bomb). How does that make the world safer?

Aq Khan - thats another joke, he's under house arrest and gets to do what he wants anyway..

-- the simplistic point of view here is that of Bush and his Manichean
'they hate our freedoms'.. more likely it is 'they hate our meddling in their past govt's and propping up tyrants left and right.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:19 AM

The entire history of Israel, including the events leading up to Israel's declaration of itself as a country, has been fictionalized by the leaders of that country. You have bought the fiction hook, line, and sinker, Teribus. You have also swallowed their hatred of and contempt for Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular. It doesn't surprise me, however, that someone with a 'might-makes-right' supremacist philosophy like yours would feel a kinship with those within the Israeli leadership who are your philosophical cousins.

However, the facts are that Israel committed numerous acts of terrorism during the period leading up to the time of their declaring independence, killing many civilians and also British government officials in the process. For this, they were rewarded with a country. When Palestinians commit acts of terrorism, their homes, women, children, civil infrastructure... all get bombed to smithereens,and they are denied a country because 'we can't reward terrorism'.

This is the account from one of the soldiers who participated in the occupation of the Palestinian village of Duelma in 1948...

Killed between 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. To kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite the houses. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a house he was about to blow up. . . . Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered "good guys". . . became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better. (quoted in Davar, 9 June 1979)

This was not an isolated incident. For this, Israel was rewarded with a state, but Palestinians are denied a state because they, in their effort to win their freedom, have killed civilians.

Israel also has committed numerous acts of terrorism since the beginning of the state of Israel. In some well documented cases, they then pinned the blame for these acts of terrorism on the peoples against whom they committed these acts, for the purpose of creating a 'justification' for committing further acts of aggression against them, and also to poison world opinion against them. In none of these cases, did any of the guilty parties suffer any consequences, or even any public censure, with the exception of one. In the case known as the Lavon Affair, Egypt executed some of the people who committed the terrorist acts, and Israel used even this as a pretext for bombing Egypt, killing many civilians and military personnel in the process.

Jewish paramilitaries (prior to statehood), and members of the Israeli government and military committed numerous massacres of civilians during the period leading up to statehood, and then also after it, both within Israel, as well as within the boundaries of the neighboring countries. Israel never suffered any consequences for any of these acts, even though they certainly violated international law. However, when Israel's neighbors sought to protect themselves from further acts of aggression by acquiring military hardware, Israel used this as an excuse to commit further acts of aggression against these countries, and take more of their land.

Israel has always employed a strategy of doing everything possible to provoke a violent response from its neighbors, including such massacres of civilians, committing the first airplane hijacking in the history of aviation, and actively encroaching into areas that were not within the boundaries of what was allotted to it in the partition plan. It has suffered no consequences for any of these things, but when the people against whom Israel committed these offenses would respond, Israel would use this response as a pretext for 'reprisal' actions, and at the same time, use them as a way to poison the attitude of people in other parts of the world against the victims of their acts of aggression.

All of these things are perfectly well documented by members of the Israeli government and military, as well as sources like the UN representatives at the scene, other on the ground eye witnesses from other countries, and also from declassified Israeli government documents.

What all of this shows, is that racism towards the various brown-skinned peoples of the world is a far more powerful force amongst people of European ancestry than is anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:28 PM

re:"'that didnt happen under the Shah's rule? ha ha aha youve got to be kidding
The Savak was just sunday school of course.."

Please note that during the first YEAR after the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranian government had executed more people than were killed by the Shah's government during its ENTIRE reign. And they did not stop at that point.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:10 PM

Let me guess Guest petr, you fled the bounties of the Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union and landed up in Canada.

Number of questions for you.

Driving ambition of Russia dating back to the time of Catherine the Great, has it never altered? What was it?

"The Savak was just sunday school of course" - Really Guest petr? I note that you haven't answered one of my questions. Public executions in the Shah's time? Tell me how many? Tell me what for?

"That is that in '53 US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian govt.." Guest petr, you have to go back over 50 bloody years to provide an example of an axe to grind? Come on!! Ever hear of a thing that was called the "Cold War"? Which by the way the "West" won hands down, it ended in the total collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now while the communists in fighting that "Cold War" killed upwards of 70 million people, the big bad "West" were possibly responsible for killing a few hundred thousand.

On the balance of things the world is a far, far better place. Tell me Guest petr, why did you flee to where ever you are now? Tell us Guest petr, what was your access to the internet and free discussion that you had before you made the move that changed your life?

Now let's take a look at your examples:

"by invading Iraq - the US has in fact increased the danger.. the invasion spurred North Korea to develop the bomb (which they got to keep after the US finally started negotiating with them)..
the war became a cause celebre for radical muslims everywhere
as witnessed by the increased number of bombings and incidents around the world (Bali, London, Casablanca, Egypt, Turkey, Madrid etc)."

You are completely wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but North Korea has basically come to heel - on the instructions of their Chinese masters and the USA, mainly because it is bad for business, while the North Koreas may not pay any great heed to the USA they do pay attention to what the Chinese tell them because without Chinese backing the North Koreans are nothing, same as the Warsaw Pact without Russia were nothing, hells teeth they couldn't even feed themselves - Fact Guest petr, so do not for one second attempt to tell me how great they were.

As public knowledge in 2003, how many people in the world knew about how far advanced Libya's nuclear programme was? They gave all of that up Guest petr - tell us why? Because of what the US did in Iraq, pure and simple.

"Bali, London, Casablanca, Egypt, Turkey, Madrid" Hell combined worse has happened courtesy of ETA and the PIRA, who the hell do they think that they are trying to intimidate? In the words of the worlds highest paid lap dancer - "It don't impress me much" - They are a complete and utter joke. With all their rhetoric and bluster they haven't yet even attempted to to take us on, hell they haven't even caught our attention yet, if ever they do they will bitterly regret it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 05:04 PM

'that didnt happen under the Shah's rule? ha ha aha youve got to be kidding
The Savak was just sunday school of course..
Btw as a student of history youve avoided the main point..
That is that in '53 US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian govt..
and installed the Shah
that is not an overgeneralization it is history.

great threat to USA after 911? ok Im against nuclear proliferation.. but basically by invading Iraq - the US has in fact increased the danger.. the invasion spurred North Korea to develop the bomb (which they got to keep after the US finally started negotiating with them)..
the war became a cause celebre for radical muslims everywhere
as witnessed by the increased number of bombings and incidents around the world (Bali, London, Casablanca, Egypt, Turkey, Madrid etc).

The unintended consequence of Iraq is that Iran now ends up with far more influence and close relations with the Shiite majority, as well as in Kurdistan.