Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    And how times do I have to tell that I stand by that accusation. Anytime anyone something of this sort they must apologize it is customary, get it through your head this time. And what worse, Nick Clegg had to say "I don't believe she's anti semetic", I mean come on.....
    You're changing what you're saying from "anytime anything is said against Israel" to "this sort." Your accusation is false. I have listed various organisation, institutions and people that continually say something against Israel and are unapologetic. That is false.

    We're not talking about who gets called antisemitic or not, stop evading the issue. And just to make this clear: it's you claiming that "anytime anything" is said "against Israel", it's "customary" to apologise.

    No they're not politicians to apologize for their insinuation and most of their allegation are merely mild anyway as compared to this one.
    Ah so now you're making a distinction between "anything against Israel" and "mild" criticism - an interesting development. And like I said its a general statement, you said "that has become customary anytime anything is said against Israel". You then went on to affirm it and then said that it "especially" applies to politicians - i.e it does apply as a general statement but more so to them.

    Who said I abandoned anything, you're the one who had to "abandon" your false allegations about the paper removing its article you genius, I've replied to all of your points and it seems to me you're the one who backtracking and being pedantic because you have nothing of value to add.
    :rofl: The irony. The sheer irony. I haven't abandoned a point. I said that the Palestine Chronicle had retracted its article (I did, however, make the mistake of calling it the Palestine Telegraph - which I put my hands up to). As for "being pedantic" - you made a statement, it's false.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    That seems to be an organ of interest to Israel

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...rvested-organs
    Diaz drop it goodness sake. Israeli organ harvesting from Palestinians is a viable, believable concept with proof to support the theory. Israelis harvesting organs from Haitians is false, over the top, nonsense and based on embarrasingly shoddy evidence. Note:

    1) The dozens of other nations in Haiti, many of them anti-Israeli (even Pakistan sent people) which would make it very difficult for them to implement the organ trafficking policy in the first place.

    2) The thousands of Haitians waiting for help from the Israeli staff, witnesses if organs are removed.

    3) Checks at airports.

    4) The organs would decay before reaching Israel.

    5) If Israeli's got the Palestinians who you believe it's harvesting organs from at will, then why does it need Haitain organs?

    I dunno, they're probably many more things as well, just seems like an unbelievably sh** theory.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    To both of you; where did I say that the IDF kills Palestinians for organs?

    I wrote: "...as it diminishes our claim for justice where Israel does steal organs, such as after the multiple shootings of Palestinians in the illegally occupied territories..."

    The crime is the acquisition of organs from Palestinians in territory the IDF has no legal right to be present in, let along whilst being militarily active (the killings for whatever reasons) and the subsequent stealing of organs.
    woops misread it, could have sworn you said they kill palestinians my apologies :hat2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Diaz drop it goodness sake. Israeli organ harvesting from Palestinians is a viable, believable concept with proof to support the theory. Israelis harvesting organs from Haitians is false, over the top, nonsense and based on embarrasingly shoddy evidence. Note:

    1) The dozens of other nations in Haiti, many of them anti-Israeli (even Pakistan sent people) which would make it very difficult for them to implement the organ trafficking policy in the first place.

    2) The thousands of Haitians waiting for help from the Israeli staff, witnesses if organs are removed.

    3) Checks at airports.

    4) The organs would decay before reaching Israel.

    5) If Israeli's got the Palestinians who you believe it's harvesting organs from at will, then why does it need Haitain organs?

    I dunno, they're probably many more things as well, just seems like an unbelievably sh** theory.
    Finally, common sense!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    You're changing what you're saying from "anytime anything is said against Israel" to "this sort." Your accusation is false. I have listed various organisation, institutions and people that continually say something against Israel and are unapologetic. That is false.
    Amnesty apologizes BtSelem apologizes so your argument is pointless.

    We're not talking about who gets called antisemitic or not, stop evading the issue. And just to make this clear: it's you claiming that "anytime anything" is said "against Israel", it's "customary" to apologise.
    You're the only one who seems to think I'm evading the issue. And we are talking about who gets called anti Semitic that the purpose of the whole debate anyway.



    Ah so now you're making a distinction between "anything against Israel" and "mild" criticism - an interesting development. And like I said its a general statement, you said "that has become customary anytime anything is said against Israel". You then went on to affirm it and then said that it "especially" applies to politicians - i.e it does apply as a general statement but more so to them.
    No genius read properly what I wrote, I make no distinction. I said in comparison, so stop twisting what I'm saying. It applies to politicians, to common folk etc, the only reason we get to hear the apology from the politicians is because they have a public platform. Like Jimmy Carter had to apologize, like the Deputy Minister had to apologize, Just like the editor of the Guardian had to apologize, just like they're trying to force Ron Paul to apologize.


    :rofl: The irony. The sheer irony. I haven't abandoned a point. I said that the Palestine Chronicle had retracted its article (I did, however, make the mistake of calling it the Palestine Telegraph - which I put my hands up to). As for "being pedantic" - you made a statement, it's false.
    Yes you have, you pounced on here with a moronic and baseless insinuation and had to abandon secondly who mentioned anything in regards to chronicle, Jenny Tonge made her claims to the telegraph not the Chronicle . And yes you are being pedantic because you have nothing of value to say but carry on, I'm enjoying this
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    X
    Dude, organs are transplanted all over the world, there are special carries to do such duties. There wouldn't be a buisness in organ trafficking if you couldn't traffic them to certain destinations would there?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iPraOjgaU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjwsL...eature=related
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    woops misread it, could have sworn you said they kill palestinians my apologies :hat2:
    No worries.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    :rofl:

    This sounds exactly like something Hitler would've said...

    "Qveek, kill ze Jews, ze be harvesting our organs!"

    No offence...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Amnesty apologizes BtSelem apologizes so your argument is pointless.
    They apologise? Source? And what about almost every single other person, institution and newspaper which criticises Israel - do they apologise?

    You're the only one who seems to think I'm evading the issue. And we are talking about who gets called anti Semitic that the purpose of the whole debate anyway.
    You mean in debate between you and me, Im the only one who thinks you're evading the issue. Shocking, shocking news. In the debate (if you can call it that), between you and me: we are not talking about who gets called antisemitc. I have an issue with one of your statements, stop trying to hide your absurdity in that statement by bringing other things up.

    No genius read properly what I wrote, I make no distinction. I said in comparison, so stop twisting what I'm saying. It applies to politicians, to common folk etc, the only reason we get to hear the apology from the politicians is because they have a public platform. Like Jimmy Carter had to apologize, like the Deputy Minister had to apologize, Just like the editor of the Guardian had to apologize, just like they're trying to force Ron Paul to apologize.
    And what about every academic against Israel? What about every organisation? Are you really trying to argue that enough of these organisations has apologised for it to become "customary". That's a complete load of rubbish. I understand why we wouldn't hear the apologies of "common folk" but every group I've listed is in the public eye: HRW, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Red Cross, UNHRC, UNGA, UNSC, The Guardian, The Independent, Avi Shlaim, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, The Goldstone Report, PressTV.. I could go on and on.

    And that's just a list I wrote in a few seconds from the top of my head.


    Yes you have, you pounced on here with a moronic and baseless insinuation and had to abandon secondly who mentioned anything in regards to chronicle, Jenny Tonge made her claims to the telegraph not the Chronicle .
    The Palestine Chronicle had nothing to do with anything you said. I was just building up a case against the accusation that Israel had taken organs from Haitians. I said the Palestine Telegraph by mistake because it was fresh in my mind. That was a mistake. But thats hardly "abandoning" debates or points - especially given the point I was trying to make.

    And yes you are being pedantic because you have nothing of value to say but carry on, I'm enjoying this
    You made a statement. I challenged you. That's being "pedantic" to you? :rofl: Yeah.. you don't evade anything at all do you? What a joke.

    Shall I tell you what Im enjoying? The fact that even the pro-Palestinians on TSR can see that this is basless and yet you continue argue the point that it could be viable. Absolute hilarity. When you're passed people like DjkG.1 (on an issue you two are supposed to agree on - or near enough) you really have to question what the hell your judgement is based on.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    To both of you; where did I say that the IDF kills Palestinians for organs?

    I wrote: "...as it diminishes our claim for justice where Israel does steal organs, such as after the multiple shootings of Palestinians in the illegally occupied territories..."

    The crime is the acquisition of organs from Palestinians in territory the IDF has no legal right to be present in, let along whilst being militarily active (the killings for whatever reasons) and the subsequent stealing of organs.
    I haven't seen anything to suggest that oragns were stolen though. I've seen evidence that autopsies without the permission of the families were carried out but theres nothing to suggest AFAIK that organs were taken.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Diaz drop it goodness sake. Israeli organ harvesting from Palestinians is a viable, believable concept with proof to support the theory. Israelis harvesting organs from Haitians is false, over the top, nonsense and based on embarrasingly shoddy evidence. Note:

    1) The dozens of other nations in Haiti, many of them anti-Israeli (even Pakistan sent people) which would make it very difficult for them to implement the organ trafficking policy in the first place.

    2) The thousands of Haitians waiting for help from the Israeli staff, witnesses if organs are removed.

    3) Checks at airports.

    4) The organs would decay before reaching Israel.

    5) If Israeli's got the Palestinians who you believe it's harvesting organs from at will, then why does it need Haitain organs?

    I dunno, they're probably many more things as well, just seems like an unbelievably sh** theory.
    Excellent post. By asserting that Israel did steal organs from Haitains the only people you damage are Palestinians.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Israel should be accused of everything. If they had behaved, then 9/11 wouldn't have happended.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    They apologise? Source? And what about almost every single other person, institution and newspaper which criticises Israel - do they apologise?
    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/26...mes-accusation

    it shouldn't have, Amnesty's claims are true.

    You mean in debate between you and me, Im the only one who thinks you're evading the issue. Shocking, shocking news. In the debate (if you can call it that), between you and me: we are not talking about who gets called antisemitc. I have an issue with one of your statements, stop trying to hide your absurdity in that statement by bringing other things up.
    Ahh pedantic as usual, now this is the "historian" for all to see. Call it what you want, and you are right it was never a debate because your main premise is a word, pathetic. And who's hiding anything, I haven't changed my position once and I still reiterate what I said.


    And what about every academic against Israel? What about every organisation? Are you really trying to argue that enough of these organisations has apologised for it to become "customary". That's a complete load of rubbish. I understand why we wouldn't hear the apologies of "common folk" but every group I've listed is in the public eye: HRW, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Red Cross, UNHRC, UNGA, UNSC, The Guardian, The Independent, Avi Shlaim, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, The Goldstone Report, PressTV.. I could go on and on.
    Academics get imprisoned for speaking out against Israel or Jews for that matter, it has become customary to apologize if you are to save face. Anything Israel knows its true, it media wolves pounce on you unless you spurt the typical disclaimer.






    The Palestine Chronicle had nothing to do with anything you said. I was just building up a case against the accusation that Israel had taken organs from Haitians. I said the Palestine Telegraph by mistake because it was fresh in my mind. That was a mistake. But thats hardly "abandoning" debates or points - especially given the point I was trying to make.
    :rofl: precisely Making up nonsense because you had nothing of value to say, you're really squriming now



    You made a statement. I challenged you. That's being "pedantic" to you? :rofl: Yeah.. you don't evade anything at all do you? What a joke.
    You've made no valid challenge to it....

    Shall I tell you what Im enjoying? The fact that even the pro-Palestinians on TSR can see that this is basless and yet you continue argue the point that it could be viable. Absolute hilarity. When you're passed people like DjkG.1 (on an issue you two are supposed to agree on - or near enough) you really have to question what the hell your judgement is based on.
    I don't seek their approval or support to anything I say, I don't ask them to agree with me, I have extremely different views from the pro Palestinians on TSR, but regardless even if one person agreed, that's fine by me

    Just like Israel denied trafficking it admitted them later
    Just like Israel denied using white phosphorus it admitted them later
    We can only wait for them to admit to this.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by E_D_B)
    And where's the evidence in that article? I've never heard of the guy who seems to be the main accuser: "Ukrainian Professor of Philosophy Godin" (philosophy?)

    Again, it's completely baseless. It's not like an NGO or the UN has accused Israel of anything like this, just the "Palestine Telegraph" which I know nothing about but, judging by the quality of writing in that article, is a complete joke.

    Edit: just saw the ynet thing. The guy who trafficked organs is being extradited to Israel, where he will remain in custody...he's just a criminal. That's like accusing the British government of drug smuggling because some criminal comes into the country have swallowed a condom of heroin...
    Israel has harvested organs without permission before, doctors working for the IDF and in IDF associated firms. israel denied it for more than a decade. Israel used the ANTI-SEMITIC bomb at newspapers who tried to state the truth. Israel even tried to get european government to publically conemn the newspapers reporting that they labelled at ANTI SEMITIC, to destory credibility.

    oh, and then israelis come forward admitting they did harvest organs of dead people, including palestinians. hahaha

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...rvested-organs
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34503294...deastn_africa/

    particularly interesting:

    The admission, by the former head of the country's forensic institute, followed a furious row prompted by a Swedish newspaper reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to use their organs – a charge that Israel denied and called "antisemitic".
    I DO NOT THINK THAT ISRAEL IS TAKING HAITIAN ORGANS!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/26...mes-accusation

    it shouldn't have, Amnesty's claims are true.
    Read the damn article. "Amnesty International has apologised to the co-chairs of the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel after alleging that they had defended “war crimes” committed by Israel." It doesn't say they apologised for criticising Israel. It says they apologised for claiming that two people were defending "Israel's war crimes." And what about the other claim you made that B'Tselem had apologised.. that's just gone?


    Ahh pedantic as usual, now this is the "historian" for all to see. Call it what you want, and you are right it was never a debate because your main premise is a word, pathetic. And who's hiding anything, I haven't changed my position once and I still reiterate what I said.
    This isn't a challenge to what I said. In a debate between two people - who else, apart from your opponent, do you expect to say that either one of them is evading the debate?! The fact that you say Im the "only one" is worthless. And it seems indicative that when I challenge one of your statements you bring up irrelevance about who is antisemitic and who is not.


    Academics get imprisoned for speaking out against Israel or Jews for that matter, it has become customary to apologize if you are to save face.
    Ah your original statement has changed yet again! From "against Israel" to "against the Jews". Another interesting development. You still haven't countered my point: hundreds of organisations, people and news-outlets criticise Israel and they do not apologise. For every "academic imprisoned" (which isnt the same as apologising), I will find you even more who are critical of Israel. Out of interest, what are these examples of people being imprisoned because they criticise Israel?


    :rofl: precisely Making up nonsense because you had nothing of value to say, you're really squriming now
    Read the next line you genius: "I was just building up a case against the accusation that Israel had taken organs from Haitians." The fact that the Palestine Chronicle has retracted its article was helping my case and that, like many pro-Palestinians on TSR, they realised this was a basless accusation. The post in which I mentioned the Palestine Chronicle article was not specifically aimed at you, it was about the thread generally - that this is a basless accusation.

    You've made no valid challenge to it....
    I have listed several examples of institutions, academics and news outlets who continually criticise Israel but do not apologise.

    I don't seek their approval or support to anything I say, I don't ask them to agree with me, I have extremely different views from the pro Palestinians on TSR, but regardless even if one person agreed, that's fine by me
    I didn't say you did. I said I find it hilarious that even the pro-Palestinians can debunk your baseless claims an you still continue to argue it. That is what I find hilarious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    Read the damn article. "Amnesty International has apologised to the co-chairs of the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel after alleging that they had defended “war crimes” committed by Israel." It doesn't say they apologised for criticising Israel. It says they apologised for claiming that two people were defending "Israel's war crimes." And what about the other claim you made that B'Tselem had apologised.. that's just gone?
    Their claim was very valid, and presumably criticing "friend of Israel" i.e ardent advocates and apologists of its the policies is just as the same :curious:


    This isn't a challenge to what I said. In a debate between two people - who else, apart from your opponent, do you expect to say that either one of them is evading the debate?! The fact that you say Im the "only one" is worthless. And it seems indicative that when I challenge one of your statements you bring up irrelevance about who is antisemitic and who is not.
    I don't bring it up you're the one who replied to me with it. Secondly this whole argument is about that, those who criticize Israel are labeled as anti semites.


    Ah your original statement has changed yet again! From "against Israel" to "against the Jews". Another interesting development. You still haven't countered my point: hundreds of organisations, people and news-outlets criticise Israel and they do not apologise. For every "academic imprisoned" (which isnt the same as apologising), I will find you even more who are critical of Israel. Out of interest, what are these examples of people being imprisoned because they criticise Israel
    Ipso facto, it hasn't changed. And as I stated previously, whatever those organizations say, it's evidently not as a serious accusation as this, seeing. Academics are imprisoned, denied their tenure at universities, tarnished by media outlets and to receive any sort of mercy in the case of politicians they must apologize.

    Read the next line you genius: "I was just building up a case against the accusation that Israel had taken organs from Haitians." The fact that the Palestine Chronicle has retracted its article was helping my case and that, like many pro-Palestinians on TSR, they realised this was a basless accusation. The post in which I mentioned the Palestine Chronicle article was not specifically aimed at you, it was about the thread generally - that this is a basless accusation.
    But for the nth time this has nothing to do the Chronicle, the remarks were made to the Telegraph, where's your evidence that Chronicle had anything to do with this. You're bringing up lies again, what's new?





    I didn't say you did. I said I find it hilarious that even the pro-Palestinians can debunk your baseless claims an you still continue to argue it. That is what I find hilarious.
    They didn't really debunk anything, it's for Israel to debunk it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Their claim was very valid, and presumably criticing "friend of Israel" i.e ardent advocates and apologists of its the policies is just as the same :curious:
    No it's not. Aplogising for criticising two people is not the same as apologising for criticising Israel. You really are clutching at straws aren't you? You pick one organisation I listed and find me a link which shows them not apologising for criticising Israel - in all seriousness: is that the best you can do?

    I don't bring it up you're the one who replied to me with it. Secondly this whole argument is about that, those who criticize Israel are labeled as anti semites.
    No it's not. This debate between you and I is about whether "anytime anything" is said "against Israel" it is "customary" for them to reply. That is what I'm challenging. Bringing up who is and who isn't an antisemite has nothing to do with we are debating - it's just you bringing in irrelevance.

    Ipso facto, it hasn't changed. And as I stated previously, whatever those organizations say, it's evidently not as a serious accusation as this, seeing. Academics are imprisoned, denied their tenure at universities, tarnished by media outlets and to receive any sort of mercy in the case of politicians they must apologize.
    It doesn't matter that it's not serious. You said "anytime anything" is said "against Israel" (i.e. regardless of seriousness), it is "customary" to apologise. That is false. And like I said, the fact is happens in some cases does not make it "customary" - I gave you a list of several organisations who continually criticise Israel and they do not apologise. I gave you a list of several people who continually criticise Israel and they do not apologise. I gave you a list of news outlets who continually criticise Israel and they do not apologise.

    But for the nth time this has nothing to do the Chronicle, the remarks were made to the Telegraph, where's your evidence that Chronicle had anything to do with this. You're bringing up lies again, what's new?
    I didn't say the Chronicle had anything to do with what you said! The fact that an article which alleged the same thing was then retracted helped my case of showing that this was baseless. Which is what my first post was about.

    They didn't really debunk anything, it's for Israel to debunk it.
    Absolutely hilarious. Your ideas are now not only not credible in the eyes of Zionists and moderates but pro-Palestinians as well. I find that hilarious. And lets be honest, if Israel made a commission and they found that that this was baseless - would you really take it seriously? You would take an Israeli-state mandated report seriously? Your belief is almost unfalsifiable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    No it's not. Aplogising for criticising two people is not the same as apologising for criticising Israel. You really are clutching at straws aren't you? You pick one organisation I listed and find me a link which shows them not apologising for criticising Israel - in all seriousness: is that the best you can do?
    First of all that doesn't even make any sense, not only have you ignored what I previously told you, now you're backtracking, excellent.
    And I gave you Jimmy Carter, the deputy minister of South Africa, Guardian editor, Israel's attempt to force the Swedish PM to apologize oh and Cherie Blair of all people.

    No it's not. This debate between you and I is about whether "anytime anything" is said "against Israel" it is "customary" for them to reply. That is what I'm challenging. Bringing up who is and who isn't an antisemite has nothing to do with we are debating - it's just you bringing in irrelevance.
    You're just being annoyingly repetitive now, you've really got nothing else to say, how many times have I replied to this?



    It doesn't matter that it's not serious. You said "anytime anything" is said "against Israel" (i.e. regardless of seriousness), it is "customary" to apologise. That is false. And like I said, the fact is happens in some cases does not make it "customary" - I gave you a list of several organisations who continually criticise Israel and they do not apologise. I gave you a list of several people who continually criticise Israel and they do not apologise. I gave you a list of news outlets who continually criticise Israel and they do not apologise.
    It is customary to apologize if not you'll face many consequences as did Norman Finklestein, Ron Paul and Jenny Tonge

    I didn't say the Chronicle had anything to do with what you said! The fact that an article which alleged the same thing was then retracted helped my case of showing that this was baseless. Which is what my first post was about.
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    ahahaha come on squirmy why are you backtracking. Absolutely perfect. You've proved my point to a T.


    Absolutely hilarious. Your ideas are now not only not credible in the eyes of Zionists and moderates but pro-Palestinians as well. I find that hilarious.
    My ideas? not really, observations from Israel's past actions and most of all allegations posed by the Haitian PM. There seems to be something they and the Zionists are ignoring...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This disgraceful women has always had it in for israel. I'm glad she's been sacked, she now has less of a platform for her continuous anti-israeli remarks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    And I gave you Jimmy Carter, the deputy minister of South Africa, Guardian editor, Israel's attempt to force the Swedish PM to apologize oh and Cherie Blair of all people.
    Ah, I see you're not disputing that Amnesty apolgising to two people is not the same as apologising for criticising Israel. Good. You have picked five people and you think you've proved your point? Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Pappe, Shlaim, Bregman, Riddley, Galloway, Goldstone, Fisk, nur masalha. I really could go on and on. That's more than one person for every person you named who hasn't apologised and yet you consider it "convention"

    You're just being annoyingly repetitive now, you've really got nothing else to say, how many times have I replied to this?
    I feel the same way. Except I will keep replying instead of making points like this - i.e abandoning the debate.

    It is customary to apologize if not you'll face many consequences as did Norman Finklestein, Ron Paul and Jenny Tonge
    You said it was customary to apologise. Even if these people face the consequences, they are not apologising. And like I said above, for every person you name who apologises, I will name many many many more who haven't. "Convention" indeed.

    ahahaha come on squirmy why are you backtracking. Absolutely perfect. You've proved my point to a T.
    I never claimed that the Palestine Chronicle article had anything specifically to do with what you said. I said, in my first post that the Palestine Telegraph [I meant the Chronicle] has taken down an article trying to prove this. This was all in the context of me showing that this was a baseless accusation. What I wrote wasn't even in reply to you. And would you stop saying stuff like the above and actually respond to points?

    My ideas? not really, observations from Israel's past actions and most of all allegations posed by the Haitian PM. There seems to be something they and the Zionists are ignoring...
    :rofl: Hilarious. the pro-Palestinians are ignoring something that would be benficial for their case. Genius. It's not because it's complete crap. No, it's because the pro-Palestinians are missing pro-Palestinian points. Another thing I find hilarious: before today, you never replied more than 3-4 times - then I mentioned that you abandoned all those debates - something magical happened, you started replying more than 3-4 times. Wow. :rofl:
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 15, 2010
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.