Israel / Gaza Thread

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
Their elected government has dedicated themselves to the desctruction of Israel, and their current condition is a sad state that they apparently LOVE, and they will continue to be the victim/martyr for the entire arab world. it fills a majority of arabs with pride to see someone sticking it to Israel, however little it actually does.

Hamas only formed decades after Israel had continued to actively deny Palestine's right to exist by holding Palestinians under matioal law while colonizing their homeland out from under them, so how did you shift the onus away from Israel here?

 

[Freshgeardude]

id rather not spend some bucks on a book where I can get the correct information online such as


Here

Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

It was only after the Jews had bought all of this available land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al-Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.

In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:

It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (author's emphasis).

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el­Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.

bold for importance. underline for even more importance

 

[brownzilla786]

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
id rather not spend some bucks on a book where I can get the correct information online such as


Here

Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

It was only after the Jews had bought all of this available land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al-Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.

In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:

It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (author's emphasis).

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el­Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.

bold for importance. underline for even more importance

The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance ? the values our nations share. Tangibly, this means developing social and educational programs in the U.S. based on innovative, successful Israeli models that address similar domestic problems, and bringing novel U.S. programs to Israel.

Gee, could you get a more biased source?

 

[EagleKeeper]

One can always find a source that is biased.

And one can always complain about a bias that contradicts what one desires to be so.

The problem is separating the facts from the bias.

A bias can impact the delivery of facts and/or selective facts are presented.

Refute the facts first to expose a bias.

 

[kylebisme]

That site is so biased it tries to make the fact that around 463,000 acres was owned by Jews, out of the around 3,688,000 acres the UN allotted Israel, look important. How do you like that fact?

And what about the fact that hundreds of thousands Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from across much of that land which was never purchased, and beyond in territory the UN allotted to Palestine?

Or fact that Israel denies the rights of refugees of that ethnic cleansing operation as well as later ones to this day?

I highly doubt you can present any facts to justify any of that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
If you selectively read history you'll see Jews bought a small portion of the land that was allocated to become Israel in the UN partition plan, and then you'll completely ignore the fact that Jews also ethnically cleansed much of the rest of that land and more from hundreds of thousands of Palestinians over a period of months prior to Arab nations sending their armies in to stop it.

Here freshgeardude, try reading some history that isn't propagandized to support Israel's conquest over what little is left of Palestine:

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-C...an-Pappe/dp/1851684670

History that isn't propagandized?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/ar...4092-A823-6FE16BA75CEF

One such ?Israeli? who appeared at Fresno State?s ?Palestine Day? was Illan Pappe, a University of Haifa history professor in Israel, who Americans, especially young college students, know nothing about other than he is an ?Israeli peace advocate.? Pappe, who ran for Israel?s parliament as a Communist and was soundly rejected in Israel?s democracy then embarked on an ignominious campaign attacking Israel. As a tenured history professor (and a marginally recognized one in normal historical circles), Pappe found his niche and fortunes touring the world as an Israeli for the PLO. His most recent notoriety came about in Israel over a libel trial in which one of his protégés presented a thesis describing a massacre of Palestinians in 1948 that never occurred. [2] The Israeli soldiers accused of the atrocities sued and Pappe?s student, Theodore Katz, was forced on the witness stand to admit he fabricated the whole thing under Pappe?s direction as his faculty advisor. It later turned out the student was paid $8,000 by the PLO to do the story. The University of Haifa pulled the degree; Pappe still insists all is authentic, of course. This is just one ?Israeli? shunted about to such ?events? as at Fresno State to speak to impressionable college students. Pappe himself has stated, ?Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what the facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth-seekers.? These words would have made Edward Said proud.

Maybe you should look for other information that isn't "propagandized "? Because such information certainly doesn't come from Pappe.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There you go again, harping on this cleansing and the right of return.

The refugees have been treated better under Israel"rule" than Arab rule.

Israel conquered that territory in self defense and it alone has the determination on what will be done.

The Palestinians aligned themselves with the losing end.
both sides tried to remove the opposition; apparently Israel was smarter and according to you, succeeded. The Arabs failed.

The land allocated was based on input from others; complain to the UN about the allocation.
Given the bias of the UN, you should succeed in getting one to listen to you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

If people want some history that isn't propagandized, read the following. It's a decent synopsis of the situation based on actual documentation instead of spurious claims and distortions that turn out to either be highly embellished or completely faked:

http://online.wsj.com/article/...ion_journal_federation

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe you should look for other information that isn't "propagandized "? Because such information certainly doesn't come from Pappe.

The book I recommended is full of well documented research which illustrates the ethnic cleansing process in detail. If you think you have a more accurate historical record of how hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refuges of prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, I'd love to see it.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The Palestinians aligned themselves with the losing end.
both sides tried to remove the opposition; apparently Israel was smarter and according to you, succeeded. The Arabs failed.

The Arab nations didn't send any armies in until after Israeli military and terrorists drove out hundreds of thousands of civilians, completely depopulating and often demolishing a couple of hundred localities. How do you suggest Palestinians aligned themselves with the wrong side there, simply by being Arabs living on land Jews wanted them off of?

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The land allocated was based on input from others; complain to the UN about the allocation.

It's a bit late to complain, I'm simply pointing out the absurdity in demonising Arab nations for voting against it.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Given the bias of the UN, you should succeed in getting one to listen to you.

The UN condemns the ethic cleansing, and the ongoing denial of millions of people's civil rights for decades, trying to beat them into submission with overwhelming military force, while colonizing across what little of their homeland they still hold legal right to, and showing no signs of stopping.

Would you call condemning such atrocities bias if they were committed by nation but Israel?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If people want some history that isn't propagandized, read the following. It's a decent synopsis of the situation based on actual documentation instead of spurious claims and distortions that turn out to either be highly embellished or completely faked:

http://online.wsj.com/article/...ion_journal_federation

Could you please quote whatever facts you believe supports your argument there?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe you should look for other information that isn't "propagandized "? Because such information certainly doesn't come from Pappe.

The book I recommended is full of well documented research which illustrates the ethnic cleansing process in detail. If you think you have a more accurate historical record of how hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refuges of prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, I'd love to see it.

Sure it does; written by a guy who was a mouthpiece for the PLO and publicly admits that ideology trumps truth.

If you want a balanced, objective account of the conflict I suggest you read the following:

http://www.amazon.com/History-...-Islamic/dp/0253208734

It gives both sides of the story and lets the reader sort it out instead of shoving a particular ideology down your throat, as Pappe does.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If people want some history that isn't propagandized, read the following. It's a decent synopsis of the situation based on actual documentation instead of spurious claims and distortions that turn out to either be highly embellished or completely faked:

http://online.wsj.com/article/...ion_journal_federation

Could you please quote whatever facts you believe supports your argument there?

This claim of premeditated dispossession and the consequent creation of the longstanding Palestinian "refugee problem" forms, indeed, the central plank in the bill of particulars pressed by Israel's alleged victims and their Western supporters. It is a charge that has hardly gone undisputed. As early as the mid-1950s, the eminent American historian J.C. Hurewitz undertook a systematic refutation, and his findings were abundantly confirmed by later generations of scholars and writers. Even Benny Morris, the most influential of Israel's revisionist "new historians," and one who went out of his way to establish the case for Israel's "original sin," grudgingly stipulated that there was no "design" to displace the Palestinian Arabs.

The recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British Mandate (1920-48) and Israel's early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the "new historians," paints a much more definitive picture of the historical record. These documents reveal that the claim of dispossession is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth. What follows is based on fresh research into these documents, which contain many facts and data hitherto unreported.

Far from being the hapless objects of a predatory Zionist assault, it was Palestinian Arab leaders who from the early 1920s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival. This campaign culminated in the violent attempt to abort the U.N. resolution of Nov. 29, 1947, which called for the establishment of two states in Palestine. Had these leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the U.N. resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place.

Shall I go on? Surely you can read the article yourself and tell me where it conflicts with my claims, because it definitely conflicts with yours?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe you should look for other information that isn't "propagandized "? Because such information certainly doesn't come from Pappe.

The book I recommended is full of well documented research which illustrates the ethnic cleansing process in detail. If you think you have a more accurate historical record of how hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refuges of prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, I'd love to see it.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The Palestinians aligned themselves with the losing end.
both sides tried to remove the opposition; apparently Israel was smarter and according to you, succeeded. The Arabs failed.

The Arab nations didn't send any armies in until after Israeli military and terrorists drove out hundreds of thousands of civilians, completely depopulating and often demolishing a couple of hundred localities. How do you suggest Palestinians aligned themselves with the wrong side there, simply by being Arabs living on land Jews wanted them off of?

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The land allocated was based on input from others; complain to the UN about the allocation.

It's a bit late to complain, I'm simply pointing out the absurdity in demonising Arab nations for voting against it.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Given the bias of the UN, you should succeed in getting one to listen to you.

The UN condemns the ethic cleansing, and the ongoing denial of millions of people's civil rights for decades, trying to beat them into submission with overwhelming military force, while colonizing across what little of their homeland they still hold legal right to, and showing no signs of stopping.

Would you call condemning such atrocities bias if they were committed by nation but Israel?

The Arab armies were not there for the benefit of the Palestinians, there were poised to wipe out Israel. the Arabs have never cared about their responsibilities to the PAls unless is was for proxie benefit.

The Pals aligned themselves with the Arabs and chose to fight against the Jews. They lost.
and the land that they had was lost 5 times over.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Shall I go on? Surely you can read the article yourself and tell me where it conflicts with my claims, because it definitely conflicts with yours?

You just quoted opining, which is all I saw in the portion of the article I read, and all that one can rightly expect out of an opinion piece.

The book I referred you to on the other hand documents many historical records of the period which demonstrate the ethnic cleansing operations carried out against Palestinians. For the sake of linkage, you can find a chart of the results of another historical study on the ethnic cleansing just down the page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...Palestinian_localities

Even CC doesn't deny it happened, he just reverses cause and effect to blame Arab nations from sending in their armies after Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The Arab armises were not there for the benefit of the Palestinians, there were poised to wipe out Israel. the Arabs have never cared about their responsibilites to the PAls unless is was for proxie benefit.

the Pals aligned themselves with the Arabs and chose to fight against the Jews. They lost.
and the land that they had was lost 5 times over.

Were do you get "poised"? The Arab armies weren't there at all when Jewish armies drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians civilians off both sides of the UN partition plan over the months before declaring statehood.

Again, how do you suggest Palestinians aligned themselves with the wrong side there, simply by being Arabs who owned land which Jews insisted on using overwhelming military force to steal from them? If so, no wonder you so vehmently support Israel's ongoing conquest over what little is left of Palestine today.

Again, would you defend any other nation but Israel for committing such atrocities?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Shall I go on? Surely you can read the article yourself and tell me where it conflicts with my claims, because it definitely conflicts with yours?

You just quoted opining, which is all I saw in the portion of the article I read, and all that one can rightly expect out of an opinion piece.

The book I referred you to on the other hand documents many historical records of the period which demonstrate the ethnic cleansing operations carried out against Palestinians. For the sake of linkage, you can find a chart of the results of another historical study on the ethnic cleansing just down the page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...Palestinian_localities

Even CC doesn't deny it happened, he just reverses cause and effect to blame Arab nations from sending in their armies after Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

I already addressed the book you referred me too. In fact, I referred you to a book that's far more objective. Pappe is a Palestinian tool and an admitted liar. Read the book I linked, learn both tragic sides, then get back to me when you have a perspective that take more than one side into consideration.

 

[kylebisme]

Tell me, what does the book recommend say to justify Israelis using overwhelming military power to ransack and destroy hundreds of Arab villages and displace hundreds of thousands of civilians?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Tell me, what does the book recommend say to justify Israelis using overwhelming military power to ransack and destroy hundreds of Arab villages and displace hundreds of thousands of civilians?

Read it and find out. Maybe you'll even discover that your hyperbole doesn't actually match the facts? Maybe you'll also discover that the Arabs as JUST as guilty in perpetrating atrocities, and maybe even moreso?

 

[kylebisme]

Seeing as how it is from the "Indiana Series in Arab and Islamic Studies" I've little doubt it talks a lot about what the Arabs did wrong, and probably doesn't mention much of the atrocities committed by Jews at all. Does it even mention the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by Israeli military and terrorist organizations ransacking the landscape during their execution of Plan Dalet which is well documented in the book I recommended and others? I know it couldn't mention any comparable force of Arabs committing an atrocity on any such scale, at least not with any historical records to back it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Seeing as how it is from the "Indiana Series in Arab and Islamic Studies" I've little doubt it talks a lot about what the Arabs did wrong, and probably doesn't mention much of the atrocities committed by Jews at all. Does it even mention the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by Israeli military and terrorist organizations ransacking the landscape during their execution of Plan Dalet which is well documented in the book I recommended and others? I know it couldn't mention any comparable force of Arabs committing an atrocity on any such scale, at least not with any historical records to back it.

:roll:

You're a waste of time. You pretend as if your not biased on the subject, but you clearly are and apparently have absolutely no inclination to read anything that might disrupt that bias or change your mind on the issue, as you keep repeating the same hyperbole over and over, as if repetition somehow makes it true.

btw, the book deals very well with both sides. In addition, it specifically deals with Plan D and would dispel your particular notion about it, so maybe you'll want to avoid having your opinion about Plan D obliterated?

 

[kylebisme]

I can't rightly pull the book out my ass and start reading it, and your lack of forthcomingness with information from it doesn't do much to pique my interest. Seriously, do you have an argument, our are you just pretending you read a book that might?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Heres a video the guy speaking isn't good and he got everthing screwed up. But Alot is fact. You guys hear me discuss choice quit a bit. Choice is alot like flow but differant. The path of least resistance , One thing I am really really good at is flow . I view everthing as flow . Than I understand everthing better. The last election you were given a choice. I made no choice. Flow and choice are alike but opposite . Its easy to understand flow because it takes path of least resistance. Choice is hard because the right choice is the path of greatest resistance. In things unseen,


He is correct The war is about to start . What he got really really wrong was were Russia stands. Now follow. Its your choice to understand or Not . Frankly I want ya to make right choice . But I don't care . Its not my place to judge. I told you guys befor. THe time of regret is upon us . No more conversions its done.

The great seerer fortold of 3 anti christ . 2 have past the other is now.

The first was shorty the other a nazi. Both these anti christ went up against Russia and LOST . I decided to scrap the video because the speaker was worse than I am at writing .

http://supernaturalspirit.com/..._satanist_service.html

Now if you know revelations you know about that which really pisses the lord off . In scripture its a name written On the temple. You say the temple doesn't exist . I say it does . Its a attractive building from many peoples point of view built templer style with many symbols. The NAME on the building is ROTHSCHILD. Who also paid for it.

So now your saying that Israel is the enemy . Nope never said that at all. But Rothschild brings about the war in the plan to destroy all men including himself. SAY what !

Ya . YOU have to read Enoch to understand. . When Adam was removed from eden . adam pleaded with God to return to eden . GOD finely said befor this day is over you shall die . Adam at that time was 500 years old . But God did promise to return Adam to eden in 5 and 1/2 days . Thats 5,500 years . Its been 5, 492 years. Satan has done everthing in his power to make GOD break that Promise. Because GOD says he can't lie . Satan tries to make God a liar. Adam did not live 1000 years so he did in fact die on the six day of creation . Than the next important thing was the tower of bable . I often wonder why GOD did what he did at Bable . It made no sense, Until I read Enoch it was like getting hit with a bolt of light. If God would not have confused man . We would have had the power to destroy our selves sooner because of a common langauge. And Gods promise to ADAM would have been broken.

The EU coin has the tower of bable on its face Again Rothschild, Adam yas been reborn and they are pissed. He is safe and shall remain that way. Read enoch not that it will help ya. As I said conversion is over this is time of regret. Any christian Catholic what ever can be saved . It tells you how to be saved . But I can no longerspeak of such . You have to learn . Its your choice. And you have been given that choice and the knowledge of that choice . There are 144'000 elect in the world right now today all puting out this message Plus the 2 witnesses . The 2 witnesses are sinners worse nite mare, For all others they are God sends.

So why isn't the book of enoch in the Bible it is . But not in the book of ROME. Why not. . Again It sall about Adam and the Sabbath . When Adam is returned to eden That s when GODs day of rest beginns and for 1,000 years man shall live in peace. That is the sabbath day Than satan is loosed once more for a short time. But Man in that time can know longer be tempted because WE have become what we were intended to become without satans interferance. I will become what I become.

So its easy to see why evil religious types removed Enoch from scripture, They wanted a one day a week payday. Some went so far as to change the day of the week to Sunday VS Saturday . Which would really be wrong as its the 1st day of week. Saturday being the 7th day of the week. The day God rest. But that just a symbolic day. The True Sabbath is the day God returns Adam to eden . Than beginns Gods rest . People Ask why does God Allow so much suffering in the world . Thats BS. God gave US free Choice. the question should be Why does MAN allow so much suffering in the World. Its our choice and who causes that suffering . World leaders men who desire power.

Now that you been told that part, The war is very near. Who ever goes against Israel loses even tho the evil RothsChild works threw Israel to bring about this war. That knowledge is in the world If your unware you were sleeping and so you shall sleep .

Rothschild is not the beast he just a demeon. I will let ya figure out who the beast is . So when the war starts if we go agaist Russia and Israel . BAD BAD deal , But befor that the great Harlet is Destroyed She who decieved the entire world . Guess Who . Peter of Rome shall be it leader. So who ever destroys Rome . Thats the side we want to be on . That puts us against the EU. IF we Don't go against the EU . You will know that Your choice in Nov was a really bad one. But theirs way more signs Unless you recieve the mark of the beast upon your head or hand none can buy or sale . The world monetary system has fallen its done, So you know the signs. You know the whys. Don't cry Well I didn't know . Seek and ye shall find . It all comes down to choice . If ya go with flow path of least resistance another bad choice you have made

I could go on and on . We have discussed this befor I well not speak of it again . I don't care what you do its your choice. It would be nice if ya made the right choice tho.

So I think I have convinced you all I am one Crazy Mother. Again I don't care its your choice . But as time moves on here and you see things. Maybe 1 of you will think . That crazy so and so told it to me straight. I am over joyed the time has come. Its been a lot of suffering and alot more to come to get to that good place. That is the goal you should all try to achieve.

What would the catalyst be that could cause such events. Especially the world turning back to ROME . Certainly not economics . So what could cause such a movement. Again scripture . Look to the heavens . Were going to see in the sky something that scares the devil out of us . LOL or into us. Again your choice I can't say . Its your choice . Better to die than recieve the mark of the beast. Bar codes by the way have 666 in them. The mark of the beast.


So which one of you guys Are sending for the guys with white coats LOl . I can't help but be over joyed about this. I am happy Gods promise to Adam will at last be Fulfilled. And man shall finelly live up to his full potencial. Nemesis.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I love that link . just give me $400 bucks and well show how to get rid of the money hungry rothschild. LOL

I think its best if you really want to Know Rothschild you should do your own research. Because like all things smoke and mirrors can get you to that place you were trying to leave. Magic. Illision deception.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I can't rightly pull the book out my ass and start reading it, and your lack of forthcomingness with information from it doesn't do much to pique my interest. Seriously, do you have an argument, our are you just pretending you read a book that might?

I wasn't speaking about that book in particular. Myself and others have already shown you information that goes quite contrary to your assertions that "Does it even mention the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by Israeli military and terrorist organizations ransacking the landscape ..."

You cling to that particular bit of propaganda like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist claiming "Bush did it, Bush did it," except for you it's 'Israel did it, Israel did it.' I question whether you're even willing to look at inoformation that goes counter to what you already seem to firmly believe?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Shall I go on? Surely you can read the article yourself and tell me where it conflicts with my claims, because it definitely conflicts with yours?

You just quoted opining, which is all I saw in the portion of the article I read, and all that one can rightly expect out of an opinion piece.

The book I referred you to on the other hand documents many historical records of the period which demonstrate the ethnic cleansing operations carried out against Palestinians. For the sake of linkage, you can find a chart of the results of another historical study on the ethnic cleansing just down the page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...Palestinian_localities

Even CC doesn't deny it happened, he just reverses cause and effect to blame Arab nations from sending in their armies after Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The Arab armises were not there for the benefit of the Palestinians, there were poised to wipe out Israel. the Arabs have never cared about their responsibilites to the PAls unless is was for proxie benefit.

the Pals aligned themselves with the Arabs and chose to fight against the Jews. They lost.
and the land that they had was lost 5 times over.

Were do you get "poised"? The Arab armies weren't there at all when Jewish armies drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians civilians off both sides of the UN partition plan over the months before declaring statehood.

Again, how do you suggest Palestinians aligned themselves with the wrong side there, simply by being Arabs who owned land which Jews insisted on using overwhelming military force to steal from them? If so, no wonder you so vehmently support Israel's ongoing conquest over what little is left of Palestine today.

Again, would you defend any other nation but Israel for committing such atrocities?

The day that independence for Israel was granted, the Arab nations attacked. Therefore they had to be prepared in advance. The Palestinians there knew that the ARabs were coming. Many decided that they did not want to be caught in the middle; others left on the promise that when the Arabs were victorious, they coiuld have the land the the Jews had improved (take the Jews land).

Apparently the roles ended up being reversed and the Palestinians were driven from their lands and the Jews werre able to take over.

The overwhelming military forces were used to defend Israel and drive off the invaders.
By the end of '73, the Arabs had been driven back across the Siani and the West Bank.
That land was not controlled by Israel in conquest.

Israel has been much more tolerant of the Arabs living in the conquered areas that the Arabs woiuld have been.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I wasn't speaking about that book in particular. Myself and others have already shown you information that goes quite contrary to your assertions that "Does it even mention the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by Israeli military and terrorist organizations ransacking the landscape ..."

You cling to that particular bit of propaganda like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist claiming "Bush did it, Bush did it," except for you it's 'Israel did it, Israel did it.' I question whether you're even willing to look at inoformation that goes counter to what you already seem to firmly believe?

I've looked though what information you have actually presnted here, it is nothing I haven't seen long ago, and does nothing to contraditcy the weath of histocal docmentation found in the books I've recommended and others.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The day that independence for Israel was granted, the Arab nations attacked. Therefore they had to be prepared in advance.

The Palestinians there knew that the ARabs were coming. Many decided that they did not want to be caught in the middle; others left on the promise that when the Arabs were victorious, they coiuld have the land the the Jews had improved (take the Jews land).

Apparently the roles ended up being reversed and the Palestinians were driven from their lands and the Jews werre able to take over.

The overwhelming military forces were used to defend Israel and drive off the invaders.
By the end of '73, the Arabs had been driven back across the Siani and the West Bank.
That land was not controlled by Israel in conquest.

Israel has been much more tolerant of the Arabs living in the conquered areas that the Arabs woiuld have been.

Sure, while Haggith, Irgun, and Lehi, ransacked Palestinian villages over the course of months during their execution of Plan-Dalet, Palestinians left to avoid Arab nations armies which were just sitting idle and prepared for attack, eh?

And sure, denying Palestinians civil rights for decades and colonizing their homeland out from under them while keeping them defenceless to resist is wonderful treatment.

What planet do you live on?

Please watch this documentary in full, and after coming to terms with all the facts presented within, I'd love to hear you try to make a rational argument to defend Israel's ongoing conquest of Palestine:

http://video.google.com/videop...d=-2451908450811690589