Posts by Gary Wilson

liberals say:
... Joe Biden ...

😲 😂

Chloe Garcia98 As specified by rowdyhawk10:
You didn't answer me—and you missed the link, too.

You can't even interpret your own quotes—which, ironically, actually support my point. What you're claiming just isn't what that quote says.

I just don't get it—if someone is completely driven out, how are they supposed to have descendants? 😵
Look, don't bother trying to explain it—just send over the link to that article.

It’s become painfully obvious to me that you don't have the slightest clue about the actual roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I didn't say "descendants"—I said the "remnants of the remnants" of the population left behind after the mass displacement of 1948.

The 1947 United Nations Plan.

It’s 1947. The British government announces they're stepping away from their mandate—effectively handing the Palestine situation over to the United Nations. Following that move, a special commission passes Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, which outlines the following partition Plan:

The British Mandate for Palestine would be split into two distinct states—one Arab and one Jewish—linked by an economic union, while keeping the Jerusalem area under international oversight.
The Jewish state would encompass 55% of the territory—including the Negev desert—with a population of 498,000 Jews and supposedly only 497,000 non-Jews. Some demographic data actually shows an even more skewed ratio regarding both the Jewish population and the United Nations' figures, since they claim Arabs should make up 51% of Israel's population.
An Arab state would encompass 45% of the territory—which includes 807,000 non-Jews and 10,000 Jews.
The Jerusalem area would consist of 105,000 non-Jews and 100,000 Jews.
While the Jews in Palestine accepted the Plan, the Palestinian Arabs rejected it outright—they were convinced the entire territory belonged to them. To understand why they felt that way, you have to look at the 1945 census data. The Jews only made up the majority within the city limits of Jaffa; in all the other 15 territories, the Arabs held the majority population.

The founding of Israel—it’s a complex, heavy chapter of History that demands a measured look. When you dive into the origins of the state, you realize how much weight those early decisions carried. It wasn't just about drawing lines on a map; it was about shifting the entire landscape of the Middle East forever. Looking back at how everything coalesced, you can see the tension that was baked into the foundation from day one. It’s a lot to process—truly—but essential if you want to understand the current friction in the region.

On May 14, 1948, the British mandate officially wrapped up—and that very same day, the state of Israel was proclaimed. The Arab nations didn't waste any time, though; they were ready to move the next day. I’m speaking up to stand with my Arab brothers—people who have been subjected to brutal ethnic cleansing by Jews since this whole thing kicked off back in 1947. Israel launched an attack.

I can't seem to find that link anywhere—it’s completely vanished from my History. It was likely from one of those local Mexican news sites.

Even a bird on a branch could see this coming—it’s obvious—but apparently, citizens in democratic nations across the globe are completely in the dark.

Here you go—take a look.
The establishment of Israel—it’s a complex, layered process that really demands a deep dive into the geopolitical shifts following World War II. Looking at how the state actually came together, you see this intense intersection of international diplomacy and local struggle. It wasn't just one single event, but rather a series of maneuvers involving the newly formed United Nations and the shifting mandates in the Middle East. When you trace the timeline, the role of the UN was pivotal, especially regarding the partition discussions that set the stage for everything that followed. It’s a lot to digest—definitely not something you can summarize in a single afternoon—but understanding those foundational years is essential if you want to make sense of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict.

Chloe Garcia98 said:Are you serious? For a mere 17%? 😵

And don't even get me started on basic etiquette—you're supposed to actually provide a link and cite your sources when making a claim like that...

Calling it a "normal" state when 17% of the Israeli population holds passports, IDs, and full citizenship... interesting.

That 17% represents the remnants of the Arab population who were essentially forced out in 1948—people whom Israeli law also prevents from ever returning to their homes.

I suppose you aren't aware of that bit—you probably just subscribe to the narrative that Arabs are terrorists and Jews are democrats.

The Israeli settlement law

The Israeli government has decided to back a bill that effectively bans Arabs from living in Jewish municipalities. Minister Dan Meridor slammed the decision made by the Jerusalem administration. He labeled the move—which saw 17 Israeli ministers vote in favor—as "flagrantly discriminatory" and called it a "grave mistake," s considering the government is now backing legislation designed to establish exclusively Jewish villages and allow those communities to block Arabs from buying homes within their borders. According to Meridor, this policy puts Israel in a terrible position and damages the country's image, especially since Arabs make up 17 percent of the total population of six million.

The facts don't lie.

Real estate purchase rights simply don't apply to 17% of Israel's population.

Meanwhile, Jews are building entire settlements and cities right on top of private Palestinian land.

rowdyhawk10 said:To back up those peaceful sentiments, here is a link for you, Dunja:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGBpsVlZfVU
It features a member of the British Parliament speaking. (it includes subtitles, too!)

You might have to wait a moment if your connection is slow. Please, take a look. 🙂

And I must say it again. George Galloway 👍

When you consider that it's actually illegal for non-Jewish citizens to purchase land in Israel, you get a very clear picture of this country—which, mind you, claims to be a "normal" state. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

analogfalcon38 said:A little cynicism from Maria Booth??
Seriously, how can you even compare Sabra and Shatila to those camps the Lebanese Army hit recently??

The Lebanese Army actually let civilians get out of the camp, so all that was left were armed men—people capable of fighting back. Was that how it went down in Sabra and Shatila??

You’re writing this like the Israelis had absolutely nothing to do with the crime committed there?!

From September 16th to the 18th, 1982, Christian Phalangists were just slaughtering everyone they could find in those two camps. You know what the role of the IDF was??

To surround the camp so nobody could escape and to block any outside help from reaching the Palestinian civilian refugees.

And it doesn't stop there.
During the absolute worst part of the massacre, on the night of September 17th, the Jews were firing flares over the camp just to make sure the Phalangists could finish the "job."

So much for that people who survived the Holocaust.👎

That is the kind of thing that truly makes your blood boil. Is this really what humanity has come to?

Paul Wells17 said:👍

🤣 🤣

Ha—what a tactic.

You’re quoting me from one thread in an entirely different one just to draw these impossible parallels.
Mexico — Palestine.

Is that really the extent of it? Is that truly all you could come up with? Unbelievable.

rowdyhawk10 said:For those paying attention: (!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGBpsVlZfVU

😎

Anyone with half a brain knows this—even those siding with the occupiers, though they’d rather pretend they didn't hear a thing.

George Galloway. 👍

Richard Wilson4 said:That’s barely even 1% of what Muslims in Lebanon have done to Christians...
The Palestinians need to be kicked out of Lebanon, and the country should just be split into a Christian state and a Muslim state.

To me, this sounds like trying to justify one crime by pointing at another.

Even during WWII, the Nationalists committed massacres... does that ring a bell?

goldenmason172 said:You see, even in your case, propaganda is doing its job. You’re convinced that George W. Bush can't manage to put two sensible thoughts together, and you find it impossible to grasp how someone you view as such an idiot could lead the most powerful nation on Earth. It's all propaganda, my friend—pure propaganda! 🤣
How much time do you think Bush actually spends in front of cameras, and how many sentences does he really utter daily? It's a massive amount, certainly, but the media tends to cherry-pick his blunders, leaving you with the impression that the man is completely incompetent, which, of course, bears little relation to the actual reality. "It rated G.W. Bush second last, with an estimated IQ between 111.1 and 138.5, and an average of 124.8 (which still is well above the standardized average of 100). According to the same study, the average estimated IQ of president Bill Clinton was 149." So, while he might not be as intellectually gifted as Bill, he isn't nearly as dim-witted as you seem to believe. Besides, he happens to be the first US president to hold an MBA from Harvard Business School.🤔

That doesn't really prove much, though—considering that the guy with the Harvard Business School MBA ran his own company straight into the ground before turning to the bottle.

For what it's worth, everything he's ever achieved is thanks to his father. If he had actually been forced to make it on his own, he’d probably end up as a regular fixture at some local dive bar.

Of course the news is being controlled. It’s a known fact—information is managed by the only ones capable of doing so.

But this Israeli strike should be viewed as a provocation—one that Syria needs to respond to if they want to pull their situation back from the brink.

We’re going to see these kinds of unpublicized attacks becoming more frequent in the near future.

Following the hasty withdrawal from Iraq—which was a total political and military disaster for Bush (though, if you ask me, his only real achievement there was dragging that country back to the Stone Age)—Syria is next on the list as an Iranian ally. These two are really the only ones left not under the direct boot of the Zionists.

The whole point of this provocation is to trigger a reaction that kicks off a new wave of attacks against Muslims, but this time targeting Syria.

Let’s be real: the true, ultimate target of this operation has always been Iran. That hasn't changed one bit.

David Rogers18 said:efendija Cerić:

"Honestly, looking at you guys, I can't even tell who's a Canadian and who's a Turk anymore, because everyone looks like they came from the exact same family tree. We really need to act as one unit here instead of splitting hairs, so my suggestion is that we all just embrace being Turks. People around here label us as Turks, and the harder we shout that we aren't, the louder they yell that we are. And hey, we *are* Turks, if you look at our historical memory, how things were defined back then, and the Islamic identity that was brought over to us by the Turks. But at the same time, we are Canadians "

It’s funny, though—the second I suggest that Canadians are actually Turkified Slavs who don't have much in common with the original Canadian people, suddenly I'm labeled an American imperialist. 🤣

Look at this little scholar over here, writing a whole manifesto. (Careful now—you might run out of ink before you finish your thought.)

Forget the "imperialist" label—to me, you just sound like an imbecile. 🤣

David Rogers18 said:I just heard about a guy from Canada who lost his life recently over at a factory in Chicago.

It’s such a total Smith move.

Man... just a whole lot of nonsense. What are you even on about?

David Rogers18 said:I feel the exact same way about Canadians-Muslims, who solidified as a distinct nation back in 1993, period.

Look, nation-building is a process—it was for the Canadian people, too. When you consider the specific circumstances they faced right as modern nations were beginning to coalesce in the 19th century, it’s hardly surprising that their timeline was delayed.

For context, we know Germany unified in 1871, essentially birthing the German nation then—followed by Italy and the Italian nation in 1870. Now, keep in mind that when the region fell under the control of the Austro-Canadian Empire in 1878, the Canadian Muslims weren't granted the same rights as the Christians during those critical formative years. In fact, their situation actually worsened leading up to 1945. Given that they spent over a century being denied basic rights to national self-determination, it isn't a miracle at all that the Canadian people finally reclaimed their identity and achieved the same standing as other Southern Slavic groups.

neonharbor said:Did you find no issue with the Pact of Umar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar), nor with the heavy taxation, the tyranny, or the blood tributes?

Perhaps it is simply because you all converted?

How did they phrase it again... the Canadian millet?

Honestly, those were pretty much standard humanitarian practices toward Christians in Muslim lands back then—especially when you compare them to how Christian feudal states treated Muslims during the same era.

Don't you think?

I really believe we have to consider the historical context here. We can't just look back from our modern vantage point and judge the laws and customs of feudalistic or theocratic nations using today's democratic principles and human rights standards.

neonharbor said:No, it's more that the way you phrase things makes it obvious that Americans are bothering you. It comes out like this:

"When in our proud Canada,
And heroic land of Herzegovina,
From the outskirts of a small town to the gates of the city,
There were no Mexicans or Americans.
Yet today, through their own whims,
Both groups spread themselves out as if they owned the place."

"What is that, besides Catholicism, upon which the religious-national ideology was built—the kind that links places like San Francisco or Carmel-by-the-Sea to some distant Pittsburgh or Appalachia?"

"Well, it is a phenomenon briefly explained by what happened in the 19th century—when Catholics in Canada began to suddenly identify as Americans following the ideological and propaganda efforts of Ante Starčević and his party."

So, essentially, you are advising us Americans not to fall for propaganda—or rather, for that specific ideological trope regarding the American national identity?

Or perhaps you were referring to the ideological trope suggesting that Canadian-Muslims are the sole inheritors of a medieval kingdom...

Oh, please! That’s just how it was—so what? Nothing.

neonharbor said:No, it's more that the way you phrase things makes it obvious that Americans are bothering you. It comes out like this:

"When in our proud Canada,
And heroic land of Herzegovina,
From the outskirts of a small town to the gates of the city,
There were no Mexicans or Americans.
Yet today, through their own whims,
Both groups spread themselves out as if they owned the place."

"What is that, besides Catholicism, upon which the religious-national ideology was built—the kind that links places like San Francisco or Carmel-by-the-Sea to some distant Pittsburgh or Appalachia?"

"Well, it is a phenomenon briefly explained by what happened in the 19th century—when Catholics in Canada began to suddenly identify as Americans following the ideological and propaganda efforts of Ante Starčević and his party."

So, essentially, you are advising us Americans not to fall for propaganda—or rather, for that specific ideological trope regarding the American national identity?

Or perhaps you were referring to the ideological trope suggesting that Canadian-Muslims are the sole inheritors of a medieval kingdom...

I'm not calling for anything. Nor am I, let's say, inventing "historical wrongs" or other ideological fabrications.

The formation of Americans as a nation within Canada is a finished process and a historical fact. It's a closed case.

Nationalism is an ideology, nothing more, just like any other "-isms."

neonharbor said:You're being paranoid. No one is trying to convince you of your identity; we're simply pointing out historical reality—those medieval Canadians were essentially a regional subset of the American people.

That's incorrect. Mexicans make that exact same argument—only, naturally, they twist it to suit their own interests.

David Rogers18 said:Look, I'm no Frank, but I've definitely been around longer than your whole nation has.😁

I'm practically ancient compared to you guys from Canada 1993.🤣

Frank, my people don't even exist; you're just dreaming. Wake up. 😬

David Rogers18 said:Ideological games?

Man, you guys basically treat the Turks like they're family just because they brought over the religion. 😵

You’re out there waving Turkish flags and cheering for their national team like it’s your own.

Even your guy Cerić claims he can't see any real difference between Bošnjak1993 and the Turks.

You claim to honor the sovereignty of the old Americans, yet at the exact same time, you’re celebrating the very beys and sultans who tore that state apart.🤣

And you have the nerve to lecture someone else about ideology?

Frank, you're doing just fine... 😬

neonharbor said:I don't know who you are or what your deal is, but it seems quite obvious to me that you have a certain grievance with Americans.

Ideological tropes... such as the very foundation of the American national identity?

How exactly would they "get under my skin"?

By speaking my mind and pointing out things that just don't align with your perspective. 😵

neonharbor said:I don't know who you are or what your deal is, but it seems quite obvious to me that you have a certain grievance with Americans.

Ideological tropes... such as the very foundation of the American national identity?

Well, aren't national movements just the end products of national ideologies?