Isis/Muslim/terrorist rant

I'm on this site for info on weight lifting I don't care what u think of me and I'm not making any internet threats America is a country ISIS is not we have a army you have well we have all seen the training videos on YouTube I'm done I hope you find your way it's never to late to accept Christ he will always forgive you good luck in life I'm gonna lift heavy things for a hour have s good day
 
I'm on this site for info on weight lifting I don't care what u think of me and I'm not making any internet threats America is a country ISIS is not we have a army you have well we have all seen the training videos on YouTube I'm done I hope you find your way it's never to late to accept Christ he will always forgive you good luck in life I'm gonna lift heavy things for a hour have s good day

Once again you prove your idiocy. I'm Christian and born and raised in the US lol.
 
Unfortunately you don't know my position. You think you do and it's kind of cute that you think so actually. Hypocrisy through silence....hmmmm that would be the case if I had condemned silence but I have not. You keep falling behind more and more and I'm entertained watching you try to get me to say something I don't believe in. No checkmate for you, you do not get to pass go or collect $200, in fact all you get is a pat on the head and a go to your room.

The only thing I have to go on are your personal attacks. Your silence when asked if you believe in the Holocaust and Israel's right to exist speaks volumes about you positions. Neither of those question were difficult to answer if the answer two both was yes. They are not so easy to answer when the answers are no.

You're so eager to discredit anyone with whom you *perceive* as not supporting your side, it prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees. You have attacked Christopher Hitchen's credibility because of a single article with which you disagreed, but are unaware that Hitchens was a huge supporter of the Palestinian cause and your natural ally. You have attempted to discredit and label Robert Spenser as a bigot because he uses Islam''s religious teachings to explain why jihad is sanctioned by the Quran, but are unaware that Spenser is from the Middle East and has stated his love for its people many times. You have demonized David Horowitz because you don't agree with his politics, yet you ignore the good work he's done on education. You have attempted to discredit Alan Dershowitz with phony charges of plagiarism because he is pro-Israel, yet you ignore the fact that he is a highly respected liberal. You have attacked me and called me an anti-Muslim bigot, but ignored my statement that I found the Iranian people to be the friendliest and most hospitable people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting.

You're not interested in ALL the facts, just the facts with which you agree. You are not capable of looking at the positions of the other side, only the positions of your own. You are not interested in articulating your own positions, just discrediting those of others. You are not willing to have a meaningful discussion, just demonizing your opponents. You are not capable of admitting to the serious faults with your side, only the faults of the other. You are not capable of being honest about the serious problems within Islam, just criticizing those who are. You are not capable of using reason and logic to make your case, just attacking your opponents with ad hominems. You are not willing to look at evidence objectively, just the propaganda that supports your side.

You accused me of having a hatred for Muslims, yet when asked, you were unable to find so much as a single post that could be construed as hatred. You accused me of Islamophobia and cursing the Muslim people simply because they're Muslim, yet when asked, you were unable to find a so much as a single example of me doing so. You accused me of being a coward because I won't admit to hating Muslims, yet you refused to answer to simple questions about the Jews.

Well Docd, you do not know my positions, either. All you know is my position on Islam. You *think* you know my position on Israel because of an intentionally provocative post I made in another thread that was directed at an anti-Semite. But that was enough for you to reject everything I've said as Islomophobia. You are unable to look beyond your own biases and erroneous perceptions and ask me what my positions are. The fact is, you know nothing about my positions on Palestine, or the Muslim people, or anything else in the Middle East, because - with the exception of my statement on Iranians - I haven't stated any. And that's unfortunate because some of them would probably surprise you.
 
Last edited:
Very disturbing coming from a fellow American and a fellow serviceman as well.
You do realize just how much this sounds like Himmler/Goebbels, right? Aware of what their organization is responsible for? I've been away from the military for some time, but is this the "new" US military doctrine? I'm not judging,... yet. Just asking, because this is something I need clarity on.
I was making a bold black and white statement. I got stabbed in the ass cheek by a kid overseas, couldn't have been older than 10. What'd i do? Detained the lil fucker. Was he a terrorist? Hardly. Did it matter? Not to my bloody ass cheek. Point is, many of the captives being held are not necessarily terrorists, but most of them aren't being held simply for shits and giggles either. They did something, even if it was something as trivial as throwing rocks at convoys, or in some cases not so trivial they told nearby Taliban operators information about our operations. Are they all terrorists bent on killing us? Not necessarily. Do I want them running around flapping they're dirty mouths and compromising the lives of my team mates and I? Fuck no. As for people being held with no justification, there is a very small number of soldiers that partake in this. So small, it is hardly an issue anymore. But with that said, overall we treat prisoners with much more respect than they do, whether they're innocent or not. That's more than they can say about the way THEY treat POWs, and they're ALL innocent IMO.
 
Damn this thread blew up. I don't have the time or patience to catch up, but I'm heading back overseas soon enough so, I'll let my rounds do the talking...
 
A grotesque love of propaganda. Unspeakable barbarity. The loathing of Jews - and a hunger for world domination. In this stunning intervention, literary colossus V.S. NAIPAUL says ISIS is now the Fourth Reich
By V.s. Naipaul For The Mail On Sunday

Published: 00:10 GMT, 22 March 2015 | Updated: 01:36 GMT, 22 March 2015

Imagine a world in which a young man is locked in a cage, has petrol showered over him and is set alight to be burnt alive.

Imagine the triumphant jeering of an audience that has gathered to witness this. Imagine, also, a 12-year-old child with elated determination on his features shooting at close range a kneeling man with his arms tied behind his back.

Then picture the spectacle of a hundred beheadings of victim after victim in humiliating uniforms, their hands and feet bound, kneeling with their backs to their black-robed executioners who wield knives to cut their throats as though they were sacrificial lambs.

20E537C400000578-0-image-a-46_1426971688749.jpg

Potent threat: Like the Nazis, Isis fanatics are anti-semitic, with a belief in their own racial superiority

Picture queues of helpless men and women being marched by zealous executioners who nail them to wooden crosses and crucify them, howling and bleeding to death as crowds watch.

Then picture thousands of girls and women, their arms tied, being marched by hooded and armed captors into sexual slavery. And then, if that is not enough, picture men being thrown off cliffs to their deaths because they are accused of being gay.


Yes, all these scenes could have taken place in several continents in the medieval world, but they were captured on camera and broadcast to anyone with access to the internet. These are scenes, of yesterday, today and tomorrow in our own world.

I have always distrusted abstractions and have turned into writing what I could discover and explore for myself.

So I must begin by admitting that I have not recently travelled in those regions threatened by barbarism – the Middle East, the north west of Africa, in pockets of Pakistan and in the Islamic countries of south eastern Asia.

15E6596A000005DC-0-image-a-64_1426972804614.jpg

Isis could very credibly abandon the label of Caliphate and call itself the Fourth Reich

However, in the 1980s and early 1990s I undertook to examine the ‘revival’ of Islam that was taking place through the revolution in Iran and the renewed dedication to the religion of other countries.

I travelled through Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia attempting to discover the ideas and convictions behind this new ‘fundamentalism’.

My first book was called Among The Believers and the second, perhaps prophetically, Beyond Belief. Since those books were written, the word ‘fundamentalism’ has taken on new meanings.

As the word suggests, it means going back to the groundings, to the foundations and perhaps to first principles. It is used to characterise the interpretation given to passages of the Koran, to the Hadith, which is a collection of the acts in the life of the Prophet Mohammed and to an interpretation of sharia law.

However, the particular fundamentalist ideology of ‘Islamist’ groups that have dedicated themselves to terror – such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and now in its most vicious, barbaric and threatening form the Islamic Caliphate, Isis or the Islamic State (IS) – interprets the foundation and the beginning as dating from the birth of the Prophet Mohammed in the 6th Century.

This fundamentalism denies the value and even the existence of civilisations that preceded the revelations of the Koran.

It was an article of 6th and 7th Century Arab faith that everything before it was wrong, heretical. There was no room for the pre-Islamic past.

So an idea of history was born that was fundamentally different from the ideas of history that the rest of the world has evolved.

In the centuries following, the world moved on. Ideas of civilisation, of other faiths, of art, of governance of law and of science and invention grew and flourished.

This Islamic ideological insistence on erasing the past may have survived but it did so in abeyance, barely regarded even in the Ottoman Empire which declared itself to be the Caliphate of all Islam.

But now the evil genie is out of the bottle. The idea that faith abolishes history has been revived as the central creed of the Islamists and of Isis.

Their determination to deny, eliminate and erase the past manifests itself in the destruction of the art, artefacts and archaeological sites of the great empires, the Persian, the Assyrian and Roman that constitute the histories of Mesopotamia and Syria.

They have bulldozed landmarks in the ancient city of Dur Sharukkin and smashed Assyrian statues in the Mosul museum. Destroying the winged bull outside the fortifications of Nineveh satisfies the same reductive impulse behind the destruction by the Taliban of the Bhumiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has described this destruction of art, artefacts, inscriptions and of the museums that house them not only as a butchery of civilisational memory but as a war crime.

It is telling that the victims of Wednesday’s barbarous shootings were visitors to the great Bardo Museum in Tunis, a repository of art and material from Tunisia’s rich, pre-Islamic past.

Isis is dedicated to a contemporary holocaust. It has pledged itself to the murder of Shias, Jews, Christians, Copts, Yazidis and anyone it can, however fancifully, accuse of being a spy. It has wiped out the civilian populations of whole regions and towns. Isis could very credibly abandon the label of Caliphate and call itself the Fourth Reich.

261DB11500000578-2970270-image-a-1_1424957194042.jpg

Isis have bulldozed landmarks in the ancient city of Dur Sharukkin and smashed Assyrian statues in the Mosul museum (pictured)

Inside ISIS-held Mosul: Fanatics smash ancient artifacts...
video-undefined-261E573000000578-668_636x358.jpg


Like the Nazis, Isis fanatics are anti-semitic, with a belief in their own racial superiority. They are anti-democratic: the Islamic State is a totalitarian state, absolute in its authority. There is even the same self-regarding love of symbolism, presentation and propaganda; terror is spread to millions through films and videos created to professional standards of which Goebbels would have been proud.

Just as the Third Reich did, Isis categorises its enemies as worthy of particular means of execution from decapitation to crucifixion and death by fire.

Whereas the Nazis pretended to be the guardians of civilisation in so far as they stole art works to preserve them and kept Jewish musicians alive to entertain them, Isis destroys everything that arises from the human impulse to beauty.

Such barbarism is not new to history and every nation has suffered mass murder and barbaric cruelty in the past. That a European country in the 20th Century launched a holocaust on the basis of race is a matter of the deepest shame.

That Isis has revived the religious dogmas and deadly rivalries between Sunnis and Shias, Sunnis and Jews and Christians is a giant step into darkness.

033365DF0000044D-0-That_a_European_country_in_the_20th_Century_launched_a_holocaust-a-55_1426972472186.jpg

That a European country in the 20th Century launched a holocaust on the basis of race is a matter of the deepest shame

The Arab lands, relatively stable under the Ottoman Empire, were divided up by the British and French victors of the First World War into the kingdoms of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Jordan at the Cairo Conference of 1920. Borders were drawn in straight lines and the sons of the Mufti of Mecca imposed on the newly carved territories as kings.

Winston Churchill was advised at the Cairo conference by T. E. Lawrence and by Gertrude Bell, who should have known that the Shia would not readily welcome or acknowledge a Sunni king and vice versa.

After upheavals, rebellions and military coups, the region settled down under dictatorships in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Ba’athist Party was, in some senses, a modernising force and Saddam Hussein, though a Sunni, ruled the predominantly Shia and partly Kurd nation of Iraq with a ruthless hand. Wherever two or three were gathered in the name of the Almighty, he sent in his police.

He may not have been a savoury character but his overarching policies were holding on to power and modernising Iraq.

He was the cat that kept the rats of Islamism at bay. His invasion of Kuwait, another artificial sheikdom, poor in territory at the knee of Iraq but rich in oil, triggered the international reaction against him. The Bush-Blair alliance invaded Iraq and the puppet regime they set up executed Saddam. In the absence of the cat, the rats ran riot.

And so it has proved throughout the region. The Libyans, with the assistance of a European alliance, overthrew Gaddafi. The country is now at the mercy of Islamic militants. The same Arab Spring saw democratic protest against the Egyptian dictator and resulted for a while in an elected regime veering towards the repressions of Islamism.

It was overthrown by a military coup whose leader, General el-Sisi, speaking to the clerics and supposed scholars of the authoritative Islamic university Al-Azhar, called on them to denounce Isis as the greatest threat to international peace and exhorted them to declare the ideology of Isis a heresy. The mullahs of Al-Azhar have not as yet complied.

In Syria, the conflict of groups opposed to the government of Bashar Al-Assad resolved itself in the formation of a Sunni Islamicist militia, which in turn evolved – after a significant bloodletting – into Isis.

Are Isis and its followers heretics? The politicians of Europe and America, including David Cameron, Barack Obama and Francois Hollande, after every Islamicist outrage insist on describing them as a lunatic fringe. Their constant refrain is that these perpetrators of murder and terror have as much to do with Islam as the Ku Klux Klan has to do with Christianity or the testament of Jesus Christ. But does such political assurance bear scrutiny?

007701FD00000258-0-image-a-65_1426972868966.jpg

Whereas the Nazis pretended to be the guardians of civilisation in so far as they stole art works to preserve them and kept Jewish musicians alive to entertain them, Isis destroys everything that arises from the human impulse to beauty

Of course the politicians, church leaders and others who say ‘these atrocities have nothing to do with Islam’ are not making a researched or considered theological statement. They are attempting, quite rightly, to prevent civil discord in a world in which there are considerable Muslim immigrant populations in most countries of Europe and in the US.

So what impels the tiny minority of young men and women from immigrant communities to volunteer themselves to ‘jihad’ and to almost certain self-destruction, or young women to abscond from their families and from European reality to become jihadi brides.

When I visited Pakistan, I discovered what I have characterised as the effects of an ideological nurture. The Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslim is taught that he or she has no historical antecedents before the conquest of parts of India and its conversion to the faith.

The pressures of poverty and promise bring this Muslim to Britain. He and his family don’t speak English.

They are confined to work and live in an exclusively immigrant area of an inner city – say Bradford, Tower Hamlets or parts of Greater Manchester or Birmingham.

Their children are raised as Muslims, some strict some not so strict, and are sent to the normal city schools which soon become almost exclusively immigrant.

012C18190000044D-0-image-a-62_1426972666040.jpg

The Bush-Blair alliance invaded Iraq and the puppet regime they set up executed Saddam Hussein (pictured). In the absence of the cat, the rats ran riot

Some find that the values that traditionally inform them are at variance with those of the lives they see around them. This is true for even those Muslim young men and women who are being educated, through Britain’s by-and-large egalitarian system, to be surgeons or computer programmers.

Islamism is simpler. There are rules to obey, a jihad to fight against the civilisation you can’t comprehend, a heaven to go to when you martyr yourself and now a real fighting force in the world which you can join to simplify and solve your existence: no history to complicate your self-awareness, no art to distract you, no ambivalence and choices that ‘Western’ civilisation offers you, no doubt about the fruits of martyrdom, no allegiance to the country in which you were brought up and which gave you a free education and perhaps welfare benefits. A gun, a half-understood prayer and the simplicity that a simple and singular upbringing craves.

That is why they go. And volunteer for death, and die.

In the past three or four centuries since Descartes, Leibniz and Newton, Islam remained encrypted in the revelations of the Koran and the Hadith of a 6th Century life.

The expansion of the scientific enquiry coincided with or possibly caused the maritime expansion of European colonialism. Empirical science, the progress of liberal religion and the germination of modern democratic ideas coincided with European colonial dominion over Asia and Africa.

The process of decolonisation in the 20th Century gave rise to the idea that every advance in civilisation, scientific or democratic, was to be condemned as ‘colonial’. There may be no ideological answer to such bigotry.

The Islamic world does contain currents that are opposed to the interpretations that Isis gives to the Koran, the Hadith and to sharia. These are yet to declare themselves.

Though the appeal of Isis can be challenged by other strands of Islam, its murderous presence persists in the failed states of Iraq and war-torn Syria and threatens to spread through northern Africa.

The crippled Iraqi government has launched its reluctant armies against Isis. The Iranians, being Shias opposed to Sunni Caliphates, are supporting the Iraqi army and the Shia militias, who are a considerable force independent of the Iraqi government, are in a coalition to fight Isis on the ground. With air support from the West, they may manage to push Isis back.

Such an offensive, with the immediate objective of regaining Iraqi territory has to be urgently expanded. Isis has to be seen as the most potent threat to the world since the Third Reich.

Its military annihilation as an anti-civilisational force has to now be the objective of a world that wants its ideological and material freedoms.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-NAIPAUL-says-ISIS-Fourth-Reich.html#comments
 
Last edited:
Docd, your credibility is worthless. You've proven time and again that you are unwilling to fact check your references (when you post them), or intentionally post what you know to be false.

I didn't bother fact checking your second series of quotes because I think it's safe to assume it's more of the same. You should be ashamed of yourself.


All too easy

2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

Misattribution and out of context.

What about Palestinian "crocodiles"? Whoever made this reference — and it is far from clear that it was Barak — seemed to be talking about the Palestinian government negotiators who were demanding more control over Jerusalem. According to the AFP news agency, a close aide to Barak was reported to have said: "In a few weeks we will know if the Palestinians want peace and are prepared to look at the compromise proposals on Jerusalem put forward by (US) President Bill Clinton at Camp David or if they are like crocodiles, which the more they eat the hungrier they are." Israeli Arab Knesset member Ahmed Tibi later accused Barak of being that "close aide," but this was never confirmed.

3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

Begin was talking, not about "the Palestinians" but about terrorists who target children within Israel.

On June 8, 1982, Begin addressed the Knesset in response to a no-confidence motion over Israel's invasion of Lebanon. He talked about defending the children of Israel, and according to a June 9, 1982 AP report, “his voice quaver[ed] with anger and sadness.” According to the minutes of the session, Begin stated:

The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of... Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.


4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

Fabrication.

5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

Now Eitan was never known for his diplomacy, but the expression he used clearly meant that the Palestinians would have no effective response to the policy he proposed. That is no more calling the Palestinians roaches than, for example, it would be calling Walt and Mearsheimer fish to say that deconstructing the claims of Walt and Mearsheimer is like “shooting fish in a barrel.”

6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.

Falsequote. Meir actually rejected a return to the pre-1967 boundaries saying, " it would be irresponsible for any Israeli government to support such a plan."

7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

Fabrication.

9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

There is no evidence proving Ben Gurion ever said this. It is a fabrication from an adversary.

10. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."

Fabrication. Ben Gurion actually said "We do not want to and we do not have to expel the Arabs and take their place. . . "


11. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

Fabrication

12. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandalsuggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)

Hamas fabrication.

13. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

Fabrication.

14. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

Fabrication. Repeat of quote 10.

15. " ... we should prepare to go over to the offensive with the aim of smashing Lebanon, Trans-jordan and Syria... The weak point in the Arab coalition is Lebanon [for] the Moslem regime is artificial and easy to undermine. A Christian state should be established... When we smash the [Arab] Legions strength and bomb Amman, we will eliminate Transjordan, too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria, and Cairo." " David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

Fabrication.

16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

Fabricated quote, false source

17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

Misquote.

ACTUAL QUOTE AND CONTEXT:

The quote is taken from an address Dayan gave to Technion University students on March 19, 1969. A transcript of the speech appeared in Ha'aretz on April 4, 1969.

In answer to a student's question suggesting that Israel adopt a policy of punishing Arabs who commit crimes in the West Bank by deportation to Jordan, Dayan answers that he is vehemently opposed to this idea, insisting that the answer to the longstanding Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to live together with Arab neighbors. He goes on to say:

We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.​

Dayan's conclusion was that the solution to the Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to coexist with them.

In the misquote, the key phrase "we purchased the land from Arabs" is omitted, and thus Dayan's meaning is reversed. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their presence in the region, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.



18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

Fabrication. Did not appear in the New York Times.

9. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.

Fabrication. This quote only appears on hate sites.

20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.

Fabrication. This quote only appears on hate sites.
 
Here is a copy of a letter written by David Ben Gurion to his son. It is not difficult to "read between the lines". correspondence and speeches were always given and written in Hebrew, unless of course they were political speeches given to an English speaking audience, and we know how much veracity you'll find there.
Continuing these arguments back and forth will never accomplish anything. We're beating a dead horse. What we have on our hands now are the results of stupid decisions by stupid people made a long time ago, and getting worse over the years by more stupid people making more stupid decisions. Bloodshed is unavoidable, which will lead to more bloodshed, which will lead to.....ad nauseam.

Letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son Amos, written 5 October 1937 Obtained from the Ben-Gurion Archives in Hebrew, and translated into English by the Institute of Palestine Studies, Beirut 5 October 1937.

Dear Amos, I was not angry at you, but I was very sorry indeed that there was no reply from you. I cannot accept the excuse that you have no time. I know you have a lot of work at school, in the field, and at home, and I am happy that you are so preoccupied with your studies. But it is always possible to find free time if necessary, not only on Sabbath days but even during weekdays. Your excuse that I keep moving from one country to another is not convincing. You can write to me in London. Here they [the Jewish Agency office] always know where I am, and they are efficient in forwarding my mail. As to the question of my membership in the executive committee [of the Jewish Agency], I shall explain to you in person if I meet you in Tel Aviv upon my return. Here what I want to talk about is the conflict you are experiencing between your reason and your emotions with regard to the question of the state. Political matters should not be a question of emotions. The only thing that should be taken into account is what we want and what is best for us, what will lead to the objective, and which are the policies that will make us succeed and which will make us fail. It seems to me that I, too, have "emotions" [quotation marks in original. Hebrew: regesh]. Without these emotions I would not have been able to endure decades of our hard work. It definitely does not hurt my feelings [regesh] that a state is established, even if it is small. Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that they [the Royal (Peel) Commission] are partitioning is not in our actual possession; it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant. But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain more without partition? If things were to remain as they are [emphasis in original], would this satisfy our feelings? What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me-- if it were Arab. From our standpoint, the status quo is deadly poison. We want to change the status quo [emphasis original]. But how can this change come about? How can this land become ours? The decisive question is: Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning. When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land. This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country. We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy-- agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means. We must always keep in mind the fundamental truths that make our settlement of this land imperative and possible. They are two or three: it is not the British Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration. These are consequences, not causes. They are the products of coincidence: contingent, ephemeral, and they will come to an end. They were not inevitable. They could not have occurred but for the World War, or rather, they would not have occurred if the war had not ended the way it did. But on the other hand there are fundamental [emphasis original] historical truths, unalterable as long as Zionism is not fully realized. These are: 1) The pressure of the Exile, which continues to push the Jews with propulsive force towards the country 2) Palestine is grossly under populated. It contains vast colonization potential which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of need) to exploit. There is no Arab immigration problem. There is no Arab exile. Arabs are not persecuted. They have a homeland, and it is vast. 3) The innovative talents of the Jews (a consequence of point 1 above), their ability to make the desert bloom, to create industry, to build an economy, to develop culture, to conquer the sea and space with the help of science and pioneering endeavor. These three fundamental truths will be reinforced by the existence of a Jewish state in a part of the country, just as Zionism will be reinforced by every conquest, large or small, every school, every factory, every Jewish ship, etc. Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if we have a state. Our strength vis-à-vis the Arabs will likewise increase. The possibilities for construction and multiplication will speedily expand. The greater the Jewish strength in the country, the more the Arabs will realize that it is neither beneficial nor possible for them to withstand us. On the contrary, it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well. I do not dream of war nor do I like it. But I still believe, more than I did before the emergence of the possibility of a Jewish state, that once we are numerous and powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become our allies. They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country. The Arabs have many countries that are under-populated, underdeveloped, and vulnerable, incapable with their own strength to stand up to their external enemies. Without France, Syria could not last for one day against an onslaught from Turkey. The same applies to Iraq and to the new [Palestinian] state [under the Peel plan]. All of these stand in need of the protection of France or Britain. This need for protection means subjugation and dependence on the other. But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not occupiers or tyrants over them. Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. In such event, the Negev will remain barren because the Arabs have neither the competence nor the need to develop it or make it prosper. They already have an abundance of deserts but not of manpower, financial resources, or creative initiative. It is very probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific assistance. It is also possible that they will not agree. People don’t always behave according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage. Just as you yourself are sometimes split conflicted between your mind and your emotions, it is possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs. We must expel Arabs and take their place. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country – that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so. Clearly in such event we will have to deal not only with the Arabs living in Eretz Israel, since it is very probable that Arabs from the neighboring countries will come to their aid. But our power will be greater, not only because we will be better organized and equipped, but also because behind us stands a force still greater in quantity and quality. This is the reservoir of the millions in the Diaspora. Our entire younger generation of Poland, Romania, America, and other countries will rush to our aid at the outbreak of such a conflict. I pray to God that this does not happen at all. Nevertheless the Jewish state will not rely only on the Jews living in it, but on the Jewish people living in every corner of the world: the many millions who are eager and obliged [emphasis original] to settle in Palestine. There are not millions of Arabs who are compelled or willing to settle in Palestine. Of course it is likely that Arab adventurers and gangs will come from Syria or Iraq or other Arab countries, but these can be no match for the tens and hundreds of thousands of young Jews to whom Eretz Israel is not merely an emotional issue, but one that is in equal measure both personal and national. For this reason I attach enormous importance to the conquest of the sea and the construction of a Jewish harbor and a Jewish fleet. The sea is the bridge between the Jews of this country and the Jewish Diaspora – the millions of Jews in different parts of the world. We must create the conditions that will enable us in times of necessity to bring into the country in our own ships manned by our own seamen, tens of thousands of young men. Meanwhile we must prepare these young men while they are still in the Diaspora for whatever task awaits them here. I am confident that the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it is only in a part of the country, will enable us to carry out this task. Once a state is established, we shall have control over the Eretz Israeli sea. Our activities in the sea will then include astonishing achievements. Because of all the above, I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will come. My warm greetings [Hebrew: Shalom Rav]. When do you return to Kadoorie [agricultural school]? Write to me. Show this letter to your mother and sisters.
 
Here is a copy of a letter written by David Ben Gurion to his son. It is not difficult to "read between the lines". correspondence and speeches were always given and written in Hebrew, unless of course they were political speeches given to an English speaking audience, and we know how much veracity you'll find there.
Continuing these arguments back and forth will never accomplish anything. We're beating a dead horse. What we have on our hands now are the results of stupid decisions by stupid people made a long time ago, and getting worse over the years by more stupid people making more stupid decisions. Bloodshed is unavoidable, which will lead to more bloodshed, which will lead to.....ad nauseam.


Kawilt, I just exposed Docd's bogus and forged quotations and now you've gone and done the same thing. Neither of you are interested in the truth, just lies that demonize Jews. It's disgraceful and both of you should be ashamed of yourselves.


"Indeed, this is how the sentence appears in other publications by Pappé: "The Arabs will have to go," but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

But even in this "corrected" sentence, the essential problem remains unchanged: None of the words in the sentence were ever written or spoken by Ben-Gurion, so no arrangement of quotation marks would yield an accurate quote. By focusing on the "erroneous citation," and by republishing the sentence with what they described as "corrected punctuation," editors failed to address with due seriousness what was uncovered by their investigation — Pappé fabricated a quotation — and failed to acknowledge that this represents a grave violation of scholarly ethics."

" Perhaps most seriously, the journal defended Pappé's hoax quote by claiming that, while the quote doesn't quite appear in the Ben-Gurion letter, its "essence" is accurate. This is because the letter, JPS editors insisted, includes an even more aggressive call for ethnic cleansing: "We must expel Arabs and take their place." The presence of this statement in the letter "thoroughly vindicates Ilan Pappé's reading," they concluded.

The problem is, some of the very scholars of the conflict JPS named to bolster its position have actually noted Ben-Gurion wrote the exact opposite in the letter: "We do not want to and we do not have to expel Arabs and take their place."​

 
Kawilt, I just exposed Docd's bogus and forged quotations and now you've gone and done the same thing. Neither of you are interested in the truth, just lies that demonize Jews. It's disgraceful and both of you should be ashamed of yourselves.


"Indeed, this is how the sentence appears in other publications by Pappé: "The Arabs will have to go," but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

But even in this "corrected" sentence, the essential problem remains unchanged: None of the words in the sentence were ever written or spoken by Ben-Gurion, so no arrangement of quotation marks would yield an accurate quote. By focusing on the "erroneous citation," and by republishing the sentence with what they described as "corrected punctuation," editors failed to address with due seriousness what was uncovered by their investigation — Pappé fabricated a quotation — and failed to acknowledge that this represents a grave violation of scholarly ethics."

" Perhaps most seriously, the journal defended Pappé's hoax quote by claiming that, while the quote doesn't quite appear in the Ben-Gurion letter, its "essence" is accurate. This is because the letter, JPS editors insisted, includes an even more aggressive call for ethnic cleansing: "We must expel Arabs and take their place." The presence of this statement in the letter "thoroughly vindicates Ilan Pappé's reading," they concluded.

The problem is, some of the very scholars of the conflict JPS named to bolster its position have actually noted Ben-Gurion wrote the exact opposite in the letter: "We do not want to and we do not have to expel Arabs and take their place."​

Yes CBS you are correct. I read the the article. So I reread the letter.
As they point out, the sentence following the insertion of the "quote" reads:
"All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land [of Israel] — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. And if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us."

Anyone that is interested in all this should read both the letter and the article from "Camera.org" and draw their own conclusions.
 
Kawilt, I just exposed Docd's bogus and forged quotations and now you've gone and done the same thing. Neither of you are interested in the truth, just lies that demonize Jews. It's disgraceful and both of you should be ashamed of yourselves.


"Indeed, this is how the sentence appears in other publications by Pappé: "The Arabs will have to go," but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

But even in this "corrected" sentence, the essential problem remains unchanged: None of the words in the sentence were ever written or spoken by Ben-Gurion, so no arrangement of quotation marks would yield an accurate quote. By focusing on the "erroneous citation," and by republishing the sentence with what they described as "corrected punctuation," editors failed to address with due seriousness what was uncovered by their investigation — Pappé fabricated a quotation — and failed to acknowledge that this represents a grave violation of scholarly ethics."

" Perhaps most seriously, the journal defended Pappé's hoax quote by claiming that, while the quote doesn't quite appear in the Ben-Gurion letter, its "essence" is accurate. This is because the letter, JPS editors insisted, includes an even more aggressive call for ethnic cleansing: "We must expel Arabs and take their place." The presence of this statement in the letter "thoroughly vindicates Ilan Pappé's reading," they concluded.

The problem is, some of the very scholars of the conflict JPS named to bolster its position have actually noted Ben-Gurion wrote the exact opposite in the letter: "We do not want to and we do not have to expel Arabs and take their place."​


Stupid arse licker. You really are dumb. Israel only deserves to live under our feet. We Muslims will beat those that provoke us.

Why did 9/11 happen? You Americans are so innocent arnt u?
 
Stupid arse licker. You really are dumb. Israel only deserves to live under our feet. We Muslims will beat those that provoke us.

Why did 9/11 happen? You Americans are so innocent arnt u?
I believe you said you were not a "radical" Muslim, so do you consider yourself a "moderate"?
 
I believe you said you were not a "radical" Muslim, so do you consider yourself a "moderate"?


He did say hewas a moderate Muslim. But so does Fatah, the people holding the Jew hating rally in the video above. Apparently their definition of moderate is a little different from everyone else's.

Don't twist my words you white supremacist. Don't stitch me up. Read through my posts, I have said a few times I'm a moderate and do not agree with terror.
 
"Camera.org"
Interesting. I'm not saying that they were not correct in pointing out the unprofessional manner in which the translator inserted a some words and one phrase that were not (I guess, since I don't read Hebrew) in the letter. But for crying out loud, he didn't need to do that, the entire letter was as Ben Gurion wrote it and you know as well as I what Ben Gurion was saying: We will give you support, we will work side by side with you, we will be your true friends. But we WILL have what we want. Do it the easy way or do it the hard way.
Back in the 90s during the peace process a Jewish friend asked me if I knew what the Jews meant when they said we want peace. He said it was like when your kids were being too noisy, to shut up because you want some peace and quiet.

"In 2008 CAMERA launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles to support the Israeli side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The campaign suggested that pro-Israeli editors should pretend to be interested in other topics until elected as administrators. Once administrators they were to misuse their administrative powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors and support pro-Israel editors.[17]Some members of this conspiracy were banned by Wikipedia administrators.[10]"
OOPS, there's that word again "conspiracy"
 
Kawilt, I just exposed Docd's bogus and forged quotations and now you've gone and done the same thing. Neither of you are interested in the truth, just lies that demonize Jews. It's disgraceful and both of you should be ashamed of yourselves.


"Indeed, this is how the sentence appears in other publications by Pappé: "The Arabs will have to go," but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

But even in this "corrected" sentence, the essential problem remains unchanged: None of the words in the sentence were ever written or spoken by Ben-Gurion, so no arrangement of quotation marks would yield an accurate quote. By focusing on the "erroneous citation," and by republishing the sentence with what they described as "corrected punctuation," editors failed to address with due seriousness what was uncovered by their investigation — Pappé fabricated a quotation — and failed to acknowledge that this represents a grave violation of scholarly ethics."

" Perhaps most seriously, the journal defended Pappé's hoax quote by claiming that, while the quote doesn't quite appear in the Ben-Gurion letter, its "essence" is accurate. This is because the letter, JPS editors insisted, includes an even more aggressive call for ethnic cleansing: "We must expel Arabs and take their place." The presence of this statement in the letter "thoroughly vindicates Ilan Pappé's reading," they concluded.

The problem is, some of the very scholars of the conflict JPS named to bolster its position have actually noted Ben-Gurion wrote the exact opposite in the letter: "We do not want to and we do not have to expel Arabs and take their place."​


There is probably no country with more at stake than Israel when it comes to the middle east and to that end the US would need a damn brain transplant if they abandoned their alliance with Israel.

Why, bc in spite of what many are told or have been coerced into believing ISRAEL is THE country that has stabilized the MIDDLE EAST to ensure we can fill our vehicles with CHEAP gas. Is it about GAS?

Your damn right it is and we should all face that fact bc the WORLDS economy is dependent upon it, and that's how it will remain until we all "evolve" functional wings :)

A brief lesson in history and I mean brief. Want to know how many more Sadam Husseins there are in the Middle East just look at isis! So the next time "you" fill up your tank just remember folks what that insular tyrant did IN ONE DAY to KAWAIT!

Now seriously folk how much easier would it be for these crazed lunatics to launch, you name it, using a "free Palestinian" nation throughout the middle east as a terrorist base of operations. Think I'm exaggerating, I only wish that was the case, but do tell me what ANY arab nation has done to control nut cases like isis? That's the ticket, let's give them a "nation", COL

GOD FORBID!
 
Last edited:
He did say hewas a moderate Muslim. But so does Fatah, the people holding the Jew hating rally in the video above. Apparently their definition of moderate is a little different from everyone else's.

Hmm limit access to your personal profile do we? Hiding like a little dog like most Americans.

Your country is whiter than white isn't it? Every drop of blood you have spilt was totally justified and the fault of the other party right?

I don't give a shit if I get arrested anymore. 9/11 was art. Up there with the Mona Lisa and the cistine chapel.
 
Back
Top