The USA and Israel

[phyllo]

Noam Chomsky refutes Israel's claims :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbWoWSRDCIk

[Sculptor]

He does not think that Wikipedia is a valid source despite all the references within it.

He thinks the Bible is a valid source, but Wikipedia isn't.

Do you know what a "wiki" is? Better look it up.

Wiki was not written by semi-literate goatherders.
Neither is it a rag bag of discrepent accounts collected decades and sometimes centuries after the events they pretend to describe

[Sculptor]

Then maybe they shouldn't have left their Jewish neighbours to be slaughtered by the other Arabs. That would have been a better idea.

So you agree that Jews unjustly grabbed the land they don't own?

It's their land. 4,000 years give them pretty good "squatters rights": and certainly far, far better than anything the Palestinians can claim. The Palestinians can only argue, at the outside, that they had any relationship with the Land for around 800 years...but more likely, about 100.

White settlers with dubious ancestry from the Kazah Empire have no rights to any land.

[phyllo]

He thinks the Bible is a valid source, but Wikipedia isn't.

Do you know what a "wiki" is? Better look it up.

Wiki was not written by semi-literate goatherders.
Neither is it a rag bag of discrepent accounts collected decades and sometimes centuries after the events they pretend to describe

Wikipedia is a starting point.

It's easy to cut and paste.

Everyone has access to it and they can follow up on the references.

If they have a problem with the correctness of an entry, they can challenge it and provide their own alternate references.

If I pull book off the shelf, then I have to scan it or type a quote by hand. And how many people, who are reading the posts, have access to that particular book? They probably can't check the context or if I'm posting a quote that isn't even in the book.

I have also posted lots of stuff from various news media and human rights organizations. Most of which seems to have been ignored.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Edward Said on whether Jews have a claim to Palestine …

Good video. He corrects a historiography which we’ve all received with a truer version.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So you agree that Jews unjustly grabbed the land they don't own?

It's their land. 4,000 years give them pretty good "squatters rights": and certainly far, far better than anything the Palestinians can claim. The Palestinians can only argue, at the outside, that they had any relationship with the Land for around 800 years...but more likely, about 100.

White settlers with dubious ancestry from the Kazah Empire have no rights to any land.

OMG. Conspiracy 101. I actually thought you were more intelligent than that. So you were just a bog-standard moronic conspiracy-turd all along. My basic instincts were right.
What's next? Quotes from the ''protocols of the elders of zion''??

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mass rape (etc.) by Hamas now reported to be doubtful.

NYT’s reporting (which I trusted) now put in doubt.

[Age]

Mass rape (etc.) by Hamas now reported to be doubtful.

NYT’s reporting (which I trusted) now put in doubt.

Why do you say, 'now' reported to be doubtful?

Doubt should 'always' exist until actual proof is obtained.

[Age]

Then maybe they shouldn't have left their Jewish neighbours to be slaughtered by the other Arabs. That would have been a better idea.

So you agree that Jews unjustly grabbed the land they don't own?

It's their land. 4,000 years give them pretty good "squatters rights": and certainly far, far better than anything the Palestinians can claim. The Palestinians can only argue, at the outside, that they had any relationship with the Land for around 800 years...but more likely, about 100.

Here is more irrefutable proof of just how stupid, closed, foolish, and selfish adult human beings really were, back when this was being written.

Also, it was the exact same people, like this one is portraying to be like, who would also argue against the true 'aboriginal' peoples of lands have less rights to lands of what 'it' and 'its people' had evaded, stolen, and colonized.

So, although their thinking was completely distorted and twisted in what they would fight and argue for, they were also highly hypocritical and would fight and argue for the opposite, if and when it suited them.

And, the most funny part when observing all this take place was these ones were completely and utterly blind to this and what they were doing.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Mass rape (etc.) by Hamas now reported to be doubtful.

NYT’s reporting (which I trusted) now put in doubt.

How about just using your fucking brain for once instead of depending on youtube videos.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Mass rape (etc.) by Hamas now reported to be doubtful.

NYT’s reporting (which I trusted) now put in doubt.

Why do you say, 'now' reported to be doubtful?

Doubt should 'always' exist until actual proof is obtained.

How do you define 'proof' in the case of rape?

[Age]

Mass rape (etc.) by Hamas now reported to be doubtful.

NYT’s reporting (which I trusted) now put in doubt.

Why do you say, 'now' reported to be doubtful?

Doubt should 'always' exist until actual proof is obtained.

How do you define 'proof' in the case of rape?

I define 'proof' in the case of rape, the exact same as I define 'proof' in the case of absolutely everything else.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So according to the fuckheads on here, nothing happened on the 7th of October. It was all fake. No rapes. No torture. Nothing. All those people are still alive. It was all just a big conspiracy by Israel to...what?...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why do you say, 'now' reported to be doubtful?

Doubt should 'always' exist until actual proof is obtained.

How do you define 'proof' in the case of rape?

I define 'proof' in the case of rape, the exact same as I define 'proof' in the case of absolutely everything else.

And how is that?

[Age]

How do you define 'proof' in the case of rape?

I define 'proof' in the case of rape, the exact same as I define 'proof' in the case of absolutely everything else.

And how is that?

Establishing to be True.

So, for example, if one claims there has been 'rape', then during the process of establishing that this claim is True there is 'proof', and if the claim is established to be True, then the claim of rape, in this case, is proved True.

Until then I just always remain OPEN, and even after then I still remain OPEN.

And, how 'proof' is ascertained is just another very simple and very easy process.