Should the US support Israel forever ?

Should the US support Israel, no matter what?


  • Total voters
    69

earnest_voice

Well-Known Member
Now CNN is tap dancing about

-maybe the didn't get the message (attack was the next fucking day)
-maybe it was Islamic Jihad (??? hair split)

And even more stupid excuses.

They had the Israeli spokesman on. He simply asked Wolf, "how do you explain the simultaneous rocket, missile and mortar attacks into Israel?."

You could see Wolf didn't like that. But all he could do was gulp.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/american-media-israel-bias-netanyahu

American media's new pro-Israel bias: the same party line at the wrong time

  • What would you do if a foreign country was occupying your land?
  • What does it mean that Israeli cabinet ministers deny Palestine’s right to exist?
  • What should we make of a prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who as opposition leader in the 1990s was found addressing rallies under a banner reading “Death to Arabs”?
These are contentious questions, to be sure, and with complicated answers. But they are relevant to understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today. They also parallel the issues routinely raised by American journalists with Palestinian officials, pressing to consider how the US would react if it were under rocket fire from Mexico, to explain why Hamas won’t recognise Israel and to repudiate Palestinian anti-Semitism.
Doer is there a talking line you don't gobble up hook, line, sinker?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
You're really showing your age now. When you check the list of nations you find the State of Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

Seems like you are the vast idiot giving vastly idiotic opinions.

I feel you should read the following http://psychcentral.com/lib/common-side-effects-of-psychiatric-medications/000179
ooohhh some wikipedo added "palestine" to the list! that proves the pallies are legitimate!

"palestine" is NOT a state, and they dont want to be one, unless becoming a state destroys israel.

if "palestine" becomes a state they will be responsible for the deeds committed by their paramilitary organizations, terrorist groups and the official recognized "parties" like hamas and fatah.

if "palestine" were a state, israel would be at WAR with them, and they would be truely fucked.

as much as you pussies whinge about the "war on the pallies", "apartheid" and "genocide", iuf palestine were a state, israel would show them what real war is all about.

right now they are just "occupied territories" of foreign powers who DONT want those turds back.

with statehood comes responsibility for their actions, and the pallies sure as fuck dont want that.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
What do they stop the terrorists with? They can't even get a4 paper in and HAMAS isn't arming the people they're killing.

While the US says stand up and stop the terrorists, it's well aware civilians have nothing to stop them with.
what is your fascination with A4 size paper?

you bring it up over and over, like it's some heinous human rights violation to blockade some item.

hamas has NO trouble getting rockets explosives, guns, etc etc etc, but always claims that the blockade is stopping "medicine" and "baby milk", as if they really give a shit about that, or the israelis and the egyptians are preventing the importation of similac and aspirin.

hamas fatah hezzbollah etc are running a snow job on weak-minded fools like you, repeating their absurd narrative until you believe it.

if the pallies stopped attacking israel, they would have their own country in a week.

they just want "their country" to include what is now part of israel, and will not accept the reality of their situation.

they WANT to be "martyrs" to their impossible cause, and idiots like you give these fuckwits the moral support they need.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member


By your standard Israel isn't a state either douchebag
ohh more lame ass photoshopping and tired old memes

who claimed israel isnt a state?

israel IS responsible for it's actions.

if some israeli paramilitary group committed some outrage in another country israel would be facing the prospect of real, actual, not imaginary WAR with that nation, but idiots like you think that moslem states can hide their aggression behind the figleaf of "plausible deeniability" when albania sens the KLA into kosovo, syria backs hezzbollah or fatah, sudan funds kony and the jajnaweed, iran backs hamas, or afghanistan and iraq provide safe haven for al quaeda operatives

only you fools believe the idiotic claims of these countries when they insist that they didnt have nuffin to do with the latest outrage.

but youre ready willing and eager to believe that the saudis are secretly funding AQ, because booosh was too cozy with their self styled king, or that the KLA is a group of freedom fighters defending the "albanian majority" in kosovo after they invade, or claim iraq and afghanistan are "boosh's unjust imperialist war for oil" despite the clear, and unambiguous evidence that:

1 ) ample justification was provided
2 ) NO oil has been provided
3 ) we leave a country after it has been rebuilt, and they get to choose their own future, no matter how retarded they decide to become (see iraq)
4 ) your side lies constantly to manufacture their feigned outrage, yet you believe every claim, no matter how absurd.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
What happened when the Newfoundlanders tossed dynamite at the Cape Brittianers?
would anybody notice?

would anybody care?

for all the world knows, canada might have been involved in a bloody sectarian civil war for decades, with casualties in the millions.

but it's only canada.

these things dont matter unless they happen to a real player on the international stage, like luxembourg, tonga, or nepal.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ooohhh some wikipedo added "palestine" to the list! that proves the pallies are legitimate!
Here we present Kynes' lifelong aversion to Wikipedia

He'll tell you "anyone can update it!!! THAT MAKES IT WRONG!!!" without bothering to cite why, how, or any evidence to support his position. He feels he's entitled to say "IT'S WRONG!!!!!", no matter what.

Meanwhile, you don't see Kynesey on Wikipedia correcting all that's wrong, do ya?...

His argument is flawed from the beginning; Anyone can change it! So go change it, ya fuck, what's stopping you??

LOL! Clearly, there's something a bit wrong with that argument.. I mean, if anyone can change it and it's got this insane liberal bias, why don't we see things like "George Bush Jr. is a warmongering asshole" or "John McCain sucks tranny dick!"?

Kynesey don't like wiki because wiki shows Kynesey wrong. He thinks dismissing it outright instead of addressing the points made is enough. It isn't. He's just a retard masquerading as intelligent, something he's also consistently failed at. E.G. anthropogenic climate change
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Here we present Kynes' lifelong aversion to Wikipedia

He'll tell you "anyone can update it!!! THAT MAKES IT WRONG!!!" without bothering to cite why, how, or any evidence to support his position. He feels he's entitled to say "IT'S WRONG!!!!!", no matter what.

Meanwhile, you don't see Kynesey on Wikipedia correcting all that's wrong, do ya?...

His argument is flawed from the beginning; Anyone can change it! So go change it, ya fuck, what's stopping you??

LOL! Clearly, there's something a bit wrong with that argument.. I mean, if anyone can change it and it's got this insane liberal bias, why don't we see things like "George Bush Jr. is a warmongering asshole" or "John McCain sucks tranny dick!"?

Kynesey don't like wiki because wiki shows Kynesey wrong. He thinks dismissing it outright instead of addressing the points made is enough. It isn't. He's just a retard masquerading as intelligent, something he's also consistently failed at. E.G. anthropogenic climate change
so youre arguing that when wikipedia makes claims that are incompatible with those of say, the IPCC's report, even when the wikipedos insist they gott their claim directly from that report, the wikipedos are right, and the IPCC is wrong because anybody can write whatever stupid bullshit they feel like on wikipedia, and the IPCC didnt edit the wikipage, and engage in an edit war to preserve their integrity?

when wikipedia makes ANY claim, that claim is dubious at best, and if you wish to insist that fatah/the PLO are a state, then you best come up with something better than " wikipedia says so"

state
noun
noun: state; plural noun: states

.
  1. a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
    "Germany, Italy, and other European states"

    country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation


na·tion
ˈnāSHən/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations
a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
"leading industrialized nations"


coun·try
ˈkəntrē/
noun
noun: country; plural noun: countries; noun: the country
1
.
a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
"the country's increasingly precarious economic position"
synonyms:
nation, (sovereign) state, kingdom, realm, territory, province, principality,



the pallies have no territory, and have claimed no borders save THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL, but they dont hold that.

until they agree on some borders that aint a state.
 

earnest_voice

Well-Known Member
what is your fascination with A4 size paper?

you bring it up over and over
Like your obsession with retarded kids and backpacks?

Claiming Palestinians don't exist?

Claiming Israel is in full complience with the 4th?

Tap dancing around the fact you wanna call obama a nigger?

You're a KKKocksucker
 
Top