• ISRAEL THREAD (Post new Israel threads = get banned)
    1,592 replies, posted
[QUOTE=smartdog;22539324] 5. "Mousa Abu Marzook, the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, in 2007 described the charter as "an essentially revolutionary document born of the intolerable conditions under occupation"" -No denouncing it here. [/quote] [quote]And no, a BRITISH DIPLOMAT is not THE HAMAS GOVERNMENT. Try again. They have NEVER denounced it. You quote me X and claim it says Y, fucking incredable! [/quote] He also said "if every state or movement were to be judged solely by its foundational, revolutionary documents . . ., there would be a good deal to answer for on all sides," noting as an example that the [[US Constitution]] engaged in codifying [[slavery]]." My god. Use your damn brain for once. [B]WHY WOULD HE MAKE THESE STATEMENTS IF THEY SUPPORT THEIR CHARTER.[/B] If thinking logically to fucking hard for you? I've never witnessed so much stupidity in my time in Facepunch. [quote] starpluck, you are as bad as him. I thought you were a bit higher then him in your reading abillities. I'm sad being proven wrong.[/QUOTE] Well boy, I always knew you were a thick-skulled idiot.
Hey Smartdog, aren't you the same person who posted that "Mortal Kombart" thread?
Oh, my, god. You are a fucking idiot, aren't you? YOU ARE QUOTING FROM WIKIPEDIA AND MAKE SHIT UP? WOW! The Wikipedia quote of him only says " For example, Mousa Abu Marzook, the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, in 2007 described the charter as "an essentially revolutionary document born of the intolerable conditions under occupation" in 1988." The part of "noting as an example that the [[US Constitution]] engaged in codifying [[slavery]]" Is fucking BS you made up. How suprising. Here's the link for your conviniece as well: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Charter[/url] Serioulsly, how can you make stuff up and then call me stupid?
[QUOTE=smartdog;22539324]haha, so many 'lols'.[/quote] :smug: [quoteLet me destroy you:[/quote] :smug: [quote]1. "lol, that source buries your argument too." No, it definitly does. Let me explain you: You enter this link: [url]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp[/url] Then, scroll down until you'll find Article Seven. Then, fucking read it. You should find this in the article:[/quote] Except the part where it describes "peace and quiet" from under the wing of Islam. You missed that. [quote]"Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."[/quote] We've kind of described this Hadith. I don't really KNOW where you got genocide from. Hyperbole/your head/whoosh again, it's kind of irrelevant. [quote]That proves I didn't edit shit.[/quote] You missed a lot of shit. [quote]""Fight back" usually means resistance." Irrelavent to the fact that the article clearly states Hamas's aspiration is to make Allah's promise become real, which is, according to what they quoted in their charter - the genocide of the Jews. It says it right their, black upon white.[/quote] what he fuck do you mean, irrelevant? Of course it's fucking relevant. You missed the fucking conversion part. I don't think it says black upon white, hurp derp, genocide of the jews. It says 'fight back'. Which you say is irrelevant. so lol, your head is apparently in the clouds. [quote]"Burnemdown says a lot of things. And he said that without any source." Aha, so you just immidietly call it to be wrong. How typical of you and people of your type.[/quote] Your spelling is horrendous, get some spell check. [quote]"You didn't even know about the organ harvesting lol." That's true, I didn't know about that. That's why I asked for a source. Contrary to you, I want to be aware to all of the facts sorounding this conflict before pretending to know I understand shit. That's why I asked for source instead of dismissing it. That doesn't change the fact you two know shit about the conflict. You've been consisted on demonstrating that.[/quote] look at me, im smartdog, im arrogant as fuck [quote]"Mousa Abu Marzook, the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, in 2007 described the charter as "an essentially revolutionary document born of the intolerable conditions under occupation"" -No denouncing it here. [/quote] You are fucking illiterate. please, show me where in the current political platform of Hamas, the charter is used. [quote]And no, a BRITISH DIPLOMAT is not THE HAMAS GOVERNMENT. Try again. They have NEVER denounced it. You quote me X and claim it says Y, fucking incredable![/QUOTE] The UN and Hamas have a lot of talks. Hamas isn't like fucking North Korea.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22539537]Oh, my, god. You are a fucking idiot, aren't you? YOU ARE QUOTING FROM WIKIPEDIA AND MAKE SHIT UP? WOW! The Wikipedia quote of him only says " For example, Mousa Abu Marzook, the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, in 2007 described the charter as "an essentially revolutionary document born of the intolerable conditions under occupation" in 1988." The part of "noting as an example that the [[US Constitution]] engaged in codifying [[slavery]]" Is fucking BS you made up. How suprising. Here's the link for your conviniece as well: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Charter[/URL] Serioulsly, how can you make stuff up and then call me stupid?[/QUOTE] Holy shit the irony is beyond belief. Wikipedia uses something called citations, in other words SOURCES. You make yourself look more & more of a jackass when you make a huge accusation against me then get proven wrong. Look, for your reputation on FP, I'd advise you to stop posting now. And here it is:[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&action=historysubmit&diff=367320448&oldid=362767799"] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&action=historysubmit&diff=367320448&oldid=362767799[/URL] for your convenience. [editline]09:53PM[/editline] Its quite funny, he goes batshit crazy by accusing me of lying and making shit up. He then gets all excited and is like "Yeah, I got Starpluck making shit up! OH WOW!!" Then [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&action=historysubmit&diff=367320448&oldid=362767799"]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&action=historysubmit&diff=36 7320448&oldid=362767799[/URL] [I]Poof[/I] He just made himself look like a dumbass if he wasn't already.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22539537]Oh, my, god. You are a fucking idiot, aren't you? YOU ARE QUOTING FROM WIKIPEDIA AND MAKE SHIT UP? WOW![/quote] CRUISE CONTROL lol, your buddy burnemdown quotes wikipedia more times then I can care to remember. [quote]The Wikipedia quote of him only says " For example, Mousa Abu Marzook, the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, in 2007 described the charter as "an essentially revolutionary document born of the intolerable conditions under occupation" in 1988."[/quote] um, it actually says more then that, but whatever. [quote]The part of "noting as an example that the [[US Constitution]] engaged in codifying [[slavery]]" Is fucking BS you made up. How suprising. Here's the link for your conviniece as well: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Charter[/url][/quote] uh did you read his fucking statement? [quote]Serioulsly, how can you make stuff up and then call me stupid?[/QUOTE] not like he said it or anything oh wait [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/10/opinion/oe-marzook10[/url] [editline]09:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=starpluck;22539623]Holy shit the irony is beyond belief. Wikipedia uses something called citations, in other words SOURCES. You make yourself look more & more of a jackass when you make a huge accusation against me then get proven wrong. Look, for your reputation on FP, I'd advise you to stop posting now. And here it is:[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&action=historysubmit&diff=367320448&oldid=362767799"] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&action=historysubmit&diff=367320448&oldid=362767799[/URL] for your convenience. [editline]09:53PM[/editline] Its quite funny, he goes batshit crazy by accusing me of lying and making shit up. He then gets all excited and is like "Yeah, I got Starpluck making shit up! OH WOW!!" Then [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&action=historysubmit&diff=367320448&oldid=362767799"]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&action=historysubmit&diff=36 7320448&oldid=362767799[/URL] [I]Poof[/I] He just made himself look like a dumbass if he wasn't already.[/QUOTE] easy there HITLER
1. "Except the part where it describes "peace and quiet" from under the wing of Islam. You missed that." Oh, sorry. The part describing genocide distracted me. 2. "We've kind of described this Hadith. I don't really KNOW where you got genocide from. " This isn't from the Hadith, it's a Surah from the Quran. Well, the part where they say that Jews will be killed until they'll hide behind trees and stones, which will then tell the Muslims where the Jews are so they'll be able to kill them - sounds really genocidle to me. Doesn't it? 3. "what he fuck do you mean, irrelevant? Of course it's fucking relevant. You missed the fucking conversion part. I don't think it says black upon white, hurp derp, genocide of the jews. It says 'fight back'. Which you say is irrelevant. so lol, your head is apparently in the clouds." How is that relevant? Yeah, they wanna fight Zionists - big suprise. But the genocide of the Jews isn't mentioned in the context of retaliation to a Jewish attack or any of that sort. And even if it did - it's still a call for genocide. 4. "Your spelling is horrendous, get some spell check." Yes, it is terrible since English isn't my native language. Your remark is really off-topic. Your evasion to adress my point, on the other hand, isn't. 5. "look at me, im smartdog, im arrogant as fuck Awwwww... here, have a tissue. 6. "please, show me where in the current political platform of Hamas, the charter is used." A charter is core-positions a party holds. Do I really have to explain that to you? starpluck, I honestly thought you understood it is your time to admit your error. The sentence was edited out because it has no citations. The only part he said was the part quoted, that's all. "not like he said it or anything" For the love of God... I didn't deny he said that. The only part I said starpluck made up (which hi did..) is the part saying that Marzook refered to the American Constition.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22539733]1. "Except the part where it describes "peace and quiet" from under the wing of Islam. You missed that." Oh, sorry. The part describing genocide distracted me. 2. "We've kind of described this Hadith. I don't really KNOW where you got genocide from. " This isn't from the Hadith, it's a Surah from the Quran. Well, the part where they say that Jews will be killed until they'll hide behind trees and stones, which will then tell the Muslims where the Jews are so they'll be able to kill them - sounds really genocidle to me. Doesn't it? 3. "what he fuck do you mean, irrelevant? Of course it's fucking relevant. You missed the fucking conversion part. I don't think it says black upon white, hurp derp, genocide of the jews. It says 'fight back'. Which you say is irrelevant. so lol, your head is apparently in the clouds." How is that relevant? Yeah, they wanna fight Zionists - big suprise. But the genocide of the Jews isn't mentioned in the context of retaliation to a Jewish attack or any of that sort. And even if it did - it's still a call for genocide. 4. "Your spelling is horrendous, get some spell check." Yes, it is terrible since English isn't my native language. Your remark is really off-topic. Your evasion to adress my point, on the other hand, isn't. 5. "look at me, im smartdog, im arrogant as fuck Awwwww... here, have a tissue. 6. "please, show me where in the current political platform of Hamas, the charter is used." A charter is core-positions a party holds. Do I really have to explain that to you?[/QUOTE] ehhh... ok btw, you don't know what a hadith is.. [editline]09:57PM[/editline] [quote]How is that relevant? Yeah, they wanna fight Zionists[/quote] it's... kind of relevant. you know, since that' the point? [editline]09:58PM[/editline] i enjoyed Clinicalthought better, at least he has conspiracy theories whilst ignoring everything.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22539733] 6. "please, show me where in the current political platform of Hamas, the charter is used." A charter is core-positions a party holds. Do I really have to explain that to you?[/QUOTE] Except the charter you keep bringing up isn't Hamas' charter.
"Except the charter you keep bringing up isn't Hamas' charter." Yes, it is.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22539733] starpluck, I honestly thought you understood it is your time to admit your error. The sentence was edited out because it has no citations. The only part he said was the part quoted, that's all.[/QUOTE] :doh: This is the 2nd fuck up you did [I]only[/I] regarding Wikipedia. It did have citations: [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-marzook10jul10,1,3392144.story[/url] [LIST=1] [*]It was never on Wikipedia [B]- proven wrong[/B] [*]It was never cited! [B]- proven wrong[/B] [/LIST] Yet you continue to refuse to admit it.
I think smartdog isn't even paying attention, he's just denying it for the fun of it. RIGHT, the sky is blue... oh, no, better yet, the sky is blue... OVER PALESTINE DENY THAT SMARTDOG
[QUOTE=smartdog;22539882]"Except the charter you keep bringing up isn't Hamas' charter." Yes, it is.[/QUOTE] Do you have short-term memory? It was never accepted when they became elected.
"It was never on Wikipedia - proven wrong" -I didn't say it never was on Wikipedia - I said it isn't - you know, in present tense. It was deleted for a reason, no where it is mention he refered to the American constitution.
[QUOTE=Warhol;22539933]I think smartdog isn't even paying attention, he's just denying it for the fun of it. RIGHT, the sky is blue... oh, no, better yet, the sky is blue... OVER PALESTINE DENY THAT SMARTDOG[/QUOTE] I have not once accused a dissenting opinion of trolling, but I honestly think smartdog is just a troll trying to fuck with us. His statements are way too ridiculous to be considered legitimate. [editline]10:07PM[/editline] [QUOTE=smartdog;22539975]"It was never on Wikipedia - proven wrong" -I didn't say it never was on Wikipedia - I said it isn't - you know, in present tense. It was deleted for a reason, no where it is mention he refered to the American constitution.[/QUOTE] Oh lol, ok. you're now denying what you said yourself. How about this, I was quoting the LA times on that one, not Wikipedia. Happy?
[QUOTE=starpluck;22539987]I have not once accused a dissenting opinion of trolling, but I honestly think smartdog is just a troll trying to fuck with us. His statements are way too ridiculous to be considered legitimate. [editline]10:07PM[/editline] Oh lol, ok. you're now denying what you said yourself. How about this, I was quoting the LA times on that one, not Wikipedia. Happy?[/QUOTE] Technically the LA times had the actual statment, word for word, from the guy. I don't know what he's denying.
[QUOTE=starpluck;22539987]I have not once accused a dissenting opinion of trolling, but I honestly think smartdog is just a troll trying to fuck with us. His statements are way too ridiculous to be considered legitimate. [editline]10:07PM[/editline] Oh lol, ok. you're now denying what you said yourself. How about this, I was quoting the LA times on that one, not Wikipedia. Happy?[/QUOTE] You know what I just realized? He's Glorbo's alt. I fucking bet.
[QUOTE=Sickle;22540064]You know what I just realized? He's Glorbo's alt. I fucking bet.[/QUOTE] I'd bet my life on it; that he's an alt. Glorbo seems like a possibility.
or clinicalthought... no, actually, not enough conspiracy theories.
[QUOTE=Warhol;22540149]or clinicalthought... no, actually, not enough conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE] Hmm. ClinicalThought is currently banned, an alt is likely. CriticalThought - smartdog, both names signify a form of intelligence. nah fuck that's going to far lol [editline]10:15PM[/editline] I didn't notice this edit. [quote]The only part I said starpluck made up (which hi did..) is the part saying that Marzook refered to the American Constition.[/quote]I didn't make up shit; that came straight out of the LA times.
[QUOTE=starpluck;22540196]Hmm. ClinicalThought is currently banned, an alt is likely. CriticalThought - smartdog, both names signify a form of intelligence. nah fuck that's going to far lol [editline]10:15PM[/editline] I didn't notice this edit. I didn't make up shit; that came straight out of the LA times.[/QUOTE] No, criticalthought could spell. And he wasn't interested in Mortal Kombart.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22540507]No, criticalthought could spell. And he wasn't interested in Mortal Kombart.[/QUOTE] Yeah I was going to mention the spelling as well. Its Glorbo, his spelling was just like his.
His shitty facts are like his too.
Well smartdog doesn't make sense half the time, so...
No idea if it's been posted or not, but raw footage of the boarding of the Turkish ship has just been released. An hour long, make of it what you will: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwsMJmvS0AY[/url]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;22570265]No idea if it's been posted or not, but raw footage of the boarding of the Turkish ship has just been released. An hour long, make of it what you will: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwsMJmvS0AY[/url][/QUOTE] Well, this should be interesting.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22571322]Well, this should be interesting.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately its not too interesting. The camera's POV is on the lower decks.
[QUOTE=Sporkfire;22571426]Unfortunately its not too interesting. The camera's POV is on the lower decks.[/QUOTE] Well fuck me. And just when I thought we might get something new to add to the discussion.
hay gais, w'ere peaceful kay? k have some tear gas [editline]06:10AM[/editline] and bullets [editline]06:10AM[/editline] free israel!
IDF nailed once again. [URL]http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/nailed-again-under-pressure-idf-and-haaretz-retract-description-of-suspicious-idf-distributed-photo/[/URL] [B]Nailed Again: IDF Description of Suspicious Photo It Distributed Is Retracted[/B] [B]Update:[/B] The subject of the photo has been identified. Reader el_sirio writes: “The guy in the picture is Yemeni lawmaker Mohammad al-Hazmi, showing his ceremonial dagger (known in Yemen as Jambiya), which is carried by every single man in Yemen and is an essential part of the traditional Yemeni dress. Al-Hazmi was detained by the Israelis along with 2 other Yemeni MPs who were on the flotilla. One of them told Yemeni newspapers that the picture was taken long before the Mavi Marmara was attacked by the Israelis. Al-Hazmi was showing off his ceremonial dagger to curious journalists and foreigners on the ship. In [URL="http://bit.ly/9SL8SE"][COLOR=#005299]this link[/COLOR][/URL] [Arabic] MP Hazza al-Maswari says that at the time of the Israeli attack, al-Hazmi did not have his Jambiya on him.” On May 31, the IDF Spokesman’s Office distributed a photo of a bearded Muslim man with a knife surrounded by reporters. Daylight was pouring in from a window or door behind the reporters. Offered without context or explanation, the photo played up a classic Orientalist stereotype of violent, fanatical, and even suicidal Muslims determined to kill Jews. It was included in an article based on testimony from anonymous commandos with the following title: [URL="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-commandos-gaza-flotilla-activists-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089"][COLOR=#005299]“Israeli Navy Commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us.”[/COLOR][/URL] The IDF apparently told Haaretz that the photo was taken immediately [I]after[/I] its Naval commandos raided the Mavi Marmara and other flotilla ships — at least, that’s how Haaretz described the photo based on an IDF source. Yet the raid was conducted under the cover of darkness. How could a photo obviously taken during daytime have portrayed an event that took place during the late evening? Do Muslims have magical powers that allow them to turn night into day? And why were reporters standing around, casually taking photos when commandos were supposedly getting “lynched?” Once again, the IDF’s story was highly suspect. The original IDF-sourced caption — “holding a knife [I]after[/I]” commandos boarded — is below: [IMG]http://maxblumenthal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/idf-lie-knife1.jpg[/IMG] The original Haaretz caption claims the photo was taken after the Navy commandos raided the Marmara I called the IDF Spokesman’s Office to inquire about the photo. Why did the IDF claim the photo depicted an event that took place [I]after[/I] the commandos raided the flotilla when it was clearly taken during the daytime? I asked. [IMG]http://maxblumenthal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/idf-lie-knife2.png[/IMG] After I questioned the IDF's claim of the photo's timing, Haaretz quietly changed the caption, removing language about the photo being taken after the raid Spokesman Sgt. Chen Arad told me he did not know whether the photo was taken before or after the commandos landed on the Mavi Marmara. “It could be that the claim was made by commandos in the interview,” he maintained. I reminded him that Haaretz’s source for the photo was not the commandos, but the IDF Spokesman’s Office. After confirming that his office released the photo, Arad said, “It is reasonable that it was before the actual takeover but I’m not sure what was claimed with Haaretz.” Soon after I spoke with Arad on June 8, Haaretz scrubbed its caption of the suspicious photo, removing the phrase, “holding a knife after Israeli commandos boarded their ship.” However, Haaretz did not mention the retraction, probably assuming no one would notice. The retraction raises disturbing questions about the level of coordination between the IDF and the Israeli media. Did the IDF Spokesman’s Office tip Haaretz off after I called them? And why does Haaretz accept the IDF’s version of events on the Marmara at face value? Besides casting a shadow over Haaretz’s coverage of the flotilla raid, this episode once again proves that nothing the IDF says can be trusted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.