The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Internet Intifada denies free speech > Comments

Internet Intifada denies free speech : Comments

By David Singer, published 1/4/2016

Many Palestinian websites are stifling free speech by refusing to publish comments answering anti-Israel articles published on their sites. The latest example is an article written by Rania Khalek on Electronic Intifada.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The way I see it you have absolutely no right whatsoever to whinge about free speech.
I don't even care what the maps say and what they don't and what it all means.

You should be ashamed even mentioning free speech.

Here's why, this is what his lot - the control freaks of other peoples nations - would do if they had their way.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/criticism-of-israel-not-allowed-in-canada-hate-crime-laws-to-be-used-against-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-bds-supporters/5449416

Israel would be using the free trips to Israel for our pollies to buy them off and then pass laws that restrict our speech so that Australian citizens with opinions like me would be locked up just for having a say and you'd be free to spurt your one sided crap to the blind masses.

I don't tell you what you can and can't do in Israel, you wouldn't listen anyway - evidenced by the fact you won't obey anything the UN says.
You didn't even honour the basic terms of your entry into the UN.

So don't attempt to tell us what we can and can't do in our countries, especially in light of the fact that if you had it all your way you people would act to restrict our free speech yourselves..

And that's why I think you whinging about free speech is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

All the Jewish owned and run mainstream newspapers do exactly the same thing as well.
They sensor comments they don't like.
Sometimes they will spew their agenda without even putting a name to whoever the person was who wrote it.
And they deliberately do not have comments on articles where the public opinion might go against their pc agenda.

And finally, did you read the sites privacy policy at all?

"If our server then determines that the content of your message is of insufficient quality..."

Well that's your problem right there.

Lots of people will agree with me about the low quality of your work.
You'll never have any real credibility as long as you're bias and only tell a one-sided story.
Seriously...
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 1 April 2016 4:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's mention of the McGraw-Hill controversy in a section of this article, from yesterday if your interested.
In Paul Craig Roberts' (United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan) article entitled 'For Israel’s Sake The Israel Lobby Must Be Held To Account' he says the maps are accurate, and plenty more too.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/01/for-israels-sake-the-israel-lobby-must-be-held-to-account-paul-craig-roberts
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 2 April 2016 5:13:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair critic says it all, and can find nothing worthwhile to add.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 2 April 2016 9:27:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#armchair critic and #Rhrosty

Perhaps you might care to consider the email sent to persons by McGraw Hill following complaints received from persons like your pathetic Jew-hating selves:

"Thank you for your email. When we learned about the concerns with a map in “Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World,” we placed sales of the book on hold and immediately initiated an academic review with several independent historians who have expertise in Middle East history and geography. Given the information we received from the review, we determined that the map did not meet our academic standards. We informed the authors and are no longer selling the book.

We believe that the action we took was warranted by the academic standards we have in place and the responses we received from the independent sources with whom we consulted."

Pretty condemning about the accuracy of these maps - don't you think?

Paul Craig Roberts does indeed maintain the maps are accurate - but gives no reasons.

I maintain the maps are inaccurate and give you my reasons to justify my conclusion..

I defy Paul Craig Roberts or anyone else to prove my claims are wrong.

I imagine the academic review with several independent historians who have expertise in Middle East history and geography would have raised the same objections as myself.

I also imagine the web site that refused to post my complaints fully understood my objections to the maps and declined to make them public - a perfect example of how free speech can be prevented.

McGraw Hill made the right decision without a shadow of doubt.
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 2 April 2016 2:55:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sure the publisher did their due diligence on at least some level before they first published it, and I'm pretty sure its obvious to any reasonable informed person that they were pressured into making that decision.

I pinch of dirt here, a handful there.
You are always criticizing everyone else, if the issue truly means that much to you why don't YOU commission a set of maps that you believe accurately demonstrate your representation of Israels land grab, post those maps and we'll go from there.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 2 April 2016 4:39:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
Professor Lawrence Davidson, an expert on Middle Eastern history has stated the following:

"The maps in question are not new or novel. Nor are they historically inaccurate, despite Zionists’ claims to the contrary. They can be seen individually and in different forms on websites of the BBC and Mondoweiss and are published in a number of history books, such as Mark Tessler’s well-received A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Perhaps what the Zionists can’t abide is lining up the maps together in chronological order.

In truth, the objections reported to have been used by those who pressured McGraw-Hill are historically perverse – the sort of grasping at straws that reflects a biased and strained rewriting of history. For instance, an objection was made to the labeling of public land in pre-1948 Palestine as “Palestinian.” Why? Because the Zionist claim is that Palestine before 1948 was a British mandate and so the land was British and not Palestinian. As their argument goes, “no one called the Arabs [of this area] Palestinians.” Of course, prior to 1948, no one called the East European Jews pouring in at this time “Israelis.” Further, according to those taking these maps to task, the West Bank at this time was controlled by Jordan and so it too was not Palestinian. Obviously, no one brought up the fact that in September of 1922 the British had divided Palestine in two in order to artificially create what is now Jordan. The period after World War I was one of territorial transition, however, in Palestine, the one constant was the persistent presence of the Arab Palestinians.

The Zionists offered many other dubious objections to the maps, which seem to have sent the publisher into something of a panic. It would certainly appear that no one at McGraw-Hill knew enough relevant history to make an accurate judgment on the complaints."

In this case I will take the word of a History Professors rather than a lawyer!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:02:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David already demanded I give my name and address so that he can forward my details to police in an attempt to shut down my free speech, for what I wrote on his last thread merely hours after he posted this article - the hypocrite.
He proved hes not about free speech at all, only when it suits him.

He's also a proven liar because he makes untrue and unfounded accusations.

I can understand he may have been a little offended by what I said, though the intention was not to deliberately offend, merely offer an opinion.

David, if you didn't write such one-sided articles I wouldn't feel the need to reply, simple.
My effort is to counter-balance the entire conversation against your biased point of view.
I'm merely trying to keep you honest, and from manipulating the Australian public with an unbalanced point of view and a foreign agenda.
Just like the other thread David - You wanna know who's responsible when I respond - You are.
I don't believe that I've crossed the line in anything that could be defined as hate speech.

Jews would define those maps as hate speech just because it tells a story they can't bs their way out of.

Why do they feel a need to control everything and everyone?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 3 April 2016 6:32:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair critic:, why shouldn't they?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Geoff

Dr (not Professor - as you allege) Davidson is right in stating these maps have been around for some time - but their accuracy has been constantly questioned.

"MSNBC Live" was the most recent case when the maps were presented during one of its shows and an apology was subsequently issued by the host Kate Snow after protests lodged at their showing:

“[I]n an attempt to talk about the context for the current turmoil in the Middle East, we showed a series of maps of the changing geography in that region. We realized after we went off the air the maps were not factually accurate and we regret using them.”

You are more than welcome to contact Dr Davidson to post his comments here in response to my detailed claims.

I have by sheer coincidence already posted my objections on another web site in response to the very article written by the same Dr Davidson from which you have extensively quoted.

Unlike myself - when dealing with comments from you and others - Dr Davidson has not sought to respond to my comments.

I wonder why. Does he have no answers to my objections? Have I sent him into something of a panic? He has a golden opportunity to shoot me down in flames - but chooses to remain silent.

Interestingly one response received on that other web site claims that the Negev - some 70% of the territory shown on map 1 was "desert bedouin land" - not "Palestinian land"

Whether the Negev is described as "desert Bedouin land" (as he claims) or “State Land under British Mandatory control” (as I claim) it is abundantly clear the map as presented was for either of these reasons inaccurate and misleading.

McGraw Hill and MSNBC were perfectly justified in making the decisions they did.

Maps should accurately represent history and geography - not propaganda deliberately designed to mislead.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 3 April 2016 1:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David is still attempting to prosecute me (on the other thread) for my free speech.

Racial hatred is doing something in public based on the race, colour, national or ethnic origin of a person or group of people likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.

David, I don't make comments towards you based on your race.
I don't even know if you are Jewish, Australian or what.
I make my comments based on the opinion you first put forward.
I merely respond and attempt to balance your consistently biased articles.

I've stated that it's not my intention to deliberately offend, merely to state my opinion.
I believe everything I put forward has a basis to it and I often add links to justify my statements or line of questioning.
I don't simply make things up in order to vilify.

What happens when the facts themselves cause offense such as in the maps discussion?
Its not my fault you're offended by criticism of a set a maps that are more or less accurate.
Does this mean members of this forum aren't allowed to discuss these topics simply because you might take offense, which you consistently do?
Should you be allowed to hold a monopoly on discussions based on others fear of retribution?
How do we know when you're genuinely offended, and when you're using the law to stifle criticism you don't like on issues that form your agenda?

The Racial Discrimination Act also protects my speech.
It aims to strike a balance between the right to communicate freely and the right to live free from racial hatred or vilification.

Under the Act, one of the things that are not against the law if they are 'done reasonably and in good faith' is making a fair comment, if the comment is an expression of a person’s genuine belief.

Therefore my speech and opinions are protected and I haven't broken any laws.

I can even provide links where other Jewish people state that diaspora communities have been called upon to 'engage in propaganda', so my comments are not in any way unreasonable.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-jews-urged-to-take-more-critical-line-20111123-1nuz9.html
Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 3 April 2016 7:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, you continue the tired old mantra, that being, someone says something which is factual, you don't agree because you believe that somehow it reveals the true Zionist agenda or actions, and you don't like it so you prattle on trying to defend something against the facts.

This is the tried and true method used worldwide by the Jewish lobby, and in the end you usually pull the old anti Semitic card, which is odd considering around 90% of Jews residing in Israel are of European decent.

You stated "Maps should accurately represent history and geography - not propaganda deliberately designed to mislead.". Exactly, and this is precisely why the maps in the said publication should not have been changed, they represented the accurate picture of continued ethnic cleansing being carried out by the State of Israel.

You can yell and scream all you like, you can have the very powerful Israel lobby intimidate and scare people into changing documents, maps etc etc, but you can't change reality.

Unfortunately for you the emperor clearly has no clothes and I will call a spade a spade each and every time you try to write otherwise.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Monday, 4 April 2016 12:43:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#armchair critic

If you are so confident of beating any action taken against you by the Human Rights Commissioner- why are you still so reluctant to give your name and address so action can be instituted against you for your offensive comments and rulings can be made by the appropriate authorities?

Name and address please...

#Geoff:

It would help if you were to address each of my objections to the four maps as set out in my article - to specifically show where I am in error.

Funny thing - you seem most reluctant to want to do that. Is it because you cannot point out that what I have claimed is anything but 100% correct? Is that why you keep ducking and weaving - because you have no answers to refute my specific objections to these maps being inaccurate and misleading?

I have no idea for what reasons McGraw Hill trashed these maps. I would suspect however that their reasons might have been similar to mine.

Whilst you refuse to specifically deal with my objections - you lack any credibility.

Unless you can disprove my objections the maps are clearly inaccurate and misleading.

No doubt this was understood by the web site on which I originally tried to post my objections to the four maps. That is why that website decided it was probably wiser not to publish. Why allow the conclusion to be drawn that McGraw Hill had made the right decision?

Keeping the public in the dark like mushrooms was a much easier decision to take.
Posted by david singer, Monday, 4 April 2016 8:33:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, I'm not going to do that, but its quite obvious that you are a liar, that you engage in slander and libel, that you make false allegations and don't not apologise for doing so, then try to move away from taking responsibility for yourself by consistently trying to vilify me, when it is you that consistently posts false and misleading information for political gain.

And plus you're a lawyer, you have the Jewish lobby on your side who have the politicians in their pockets, so nope, don't think so.

Its still my opinion that the Jewish people created the problems for themselves in Palestine and that's all I have to say on that matter except to say that I'm not sorry for saying it.

Honestly I think you are a paid troll.

As for the content of your articles, It's mostly all garbage.
You try to use these old documents thinking no-one will read them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#/media/File:Balfour_portrait_and_declaration.JPG

Now does it or does it not say 'The creation IN PALESTINE' of a national homeland for the Jewish people?

And if you think I have no reason to say what I have about Australian politicians, the go read Anthony Loewenstein's My Israel Question.
http://antonyloewenstein.com/books/

You know all this stuff is true.
You just don't like that anyone knows about it because you seek to influence the people who don't know any better and are easily influenced.

I think you just aim to silence anyone who uses too much of their free speech.

You are in a war with the Palestinians and you act like anyone who is not beating the war drums for your team is an enemy.

Here's an article which refutes most of the stuff you consistently waffle on about.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/newt-gingrich-s-invented-history-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/28180
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 1:28:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, do I have to write it in crayon for you to grasp the truth.

Israel was created illegally and unilaterally by the then Zionist powers with no consideration, consultation or care for the Palestinians.

The real history books, government records and real archive documents in various countries clearly attest to these facts, ones you continuously ignore for obvious reasons.

You can't raise an argument about map accuracy, as you have done in your article, when the basic premise that underpins your stated evidence is clearly and abundantly false.

I don't need to argue each and every false point you raise because all you have written is based on lies.

When you acknowledge the true facts I will tend evidence against you if I believe a rational and historical error has been made. Until such time I will continue to call you out as have others on these pages.

The tide is turning and you do yourself a disservice in terms of honour and integrity by continually espousing these lies. Pretty sad if you ask me, I don't know how you sleep at night.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 2:36:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
# Geoff

Go spin your lies to McGraw Hill and see if they will swallow them and reverse their decision that the maps are inaccurate and misleading.

I supported their decision wholeheartedly and you have provided not one scrap of evidence to indicate Mc Graw Hill was in error.

You are wasting your time bashing your head against a brick wall.

Put up some firm evidence or shut up.
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't really know why I bother responding to you David, you really are pathetic.

You have failed to provide any real evidence against my claims, and as such you have exposed your entire argument as folly.

Stop spruiking for the irrational psychopathic Zionist apologists.

Post some truth and then we can discuss the real issues at hand. Until then, put up or shut up
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Geoff

In case it may have escaped your attention here are my reasons for claiming the maps are inaccurate and misleading:

1. Map 1:

The heading - "Palestinian and Jewish Land 1946" - is misleading for the following reasons:

(i) The map excludes Transjordan which in 1946 still comprised 78% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine until granted independence by Great Britain in May 1946.

(ii) The land described as "Palestinian land" misleadingly implies legal ownership by the Palestinian Arabs of that land when in fact about 90% of it was State land under British Mandatory control and legal power of disposition.

2. Map 2:

The legend "Palestinian land" is misleading.

The legend should have said "proposed Jewish State" and "proposed Arab State" - the terms used in the UN Partition Plan.

3. Map 3:

The heading "1949-1967" is misleading.

The map should have shown the unification of the West Bank with Transjordan between 1949 and 1967 and the change of name of Transjordan to Jordan in 1950.

It should also have designated the Gaza Strip as being under Egyptian military administration between 1948-1967.

4. Map 4:

One can only wonder why the year 2000 was chosen. Why not 2015 after Israel had already withdrawn from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank in 2005 and dismantled many illegal outposts?

In any event the legend "Palestinian land" and "Israeli land" is again wrong and misleading in so far as it relates to the West Bank. The land there should have been shown as Areas "A", "B" and "C"

5. As maps designed to be taught to students they are totally lacking in accuracy and ignore basic facts in their compilation.

6. Designating land as "Palestinian land" in any event implies that such land belongs to the "Palestinians". Since there were no persons designated as "Palestinians" until the 1964 PLO Charter defined that term – the use of the term in maps before then smacks of an attempt to re-write history.

Go through each point- point by point - and tell me where I got it wrong.
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:12:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Your argument regarding points 1 thru 6 are moot solely because the land in question is part of the broader historical land known as Palestine, a name that goes back in history for millennia.

On the other hand the State of Israel was created illegally and unilaterally by the Zionists despite any legal permission to do so.

Likewise any talk about the Mandate, the land known as Jordan etc etc is also mute because the colonial carving up of middle eastern lands was again done without any authority or approval of the people's living in these lands at the time.

The maps in question clearly show illegal land theft and the implied genocide and dispossession of the natural inhabitants of these lands.

Your argument shows your clear support for this abhorrent activity and you should be ashamed.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 7 April 2016 3:42:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Geoff

As I thought - you cannot answer my criticisms of the maps point by point - because they are factually correct.

One positive however is your following comment:
" the land in question is part of the broader historical land known as Palestine, "

You expose the lies and distortions of Arab propaganda that continuously shows "Palestine" as covering the territory in the four maps - which in fact is only 22% of "Palestine - whilst the remaining 78% of "Palestine" - today called Jordan - is nowhere to be seen.

Well done Geoff.

You blot your copybook however with this little gem:
"Likewise any talk about the Mandate, the land known as Jordan etc etc is also mute because the colonial carving up of middle eastern lands was again done without any authority or approval of the people's living in these lands at the time."

Really?

They sure tried - but failed

The Palestine Arab Congress was in London in 1921 lobbying against the Mandate coming into effect - as the Spectator reported on 2 September:

"The presence of the Palestine Arab Delegation in London is only one proof of the seriousness of the situation as we have described it. This delegation has received a telegram from Jerusalem from the Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress stating that forty-six prominent Arabs were summoned by Sir Herbert Samuel to discuss the proposed Constitution for Palestine. The telegram pointed out that in the opinion, of the
Arab Committee it was not possible to discuss,the framing of a Constitution while the destiny of the country was hanging in the balance and while the delegation sent by the nation was fighting the Arab cause in London. Such discussion in their opinion should be the business of a body elected under self- governing principles. The project of fortnightly meetings to discuss the Constitution was therefore abandoned. The delegation in London has announced its agreement with the action taken by the Arabs in Palestine."

Yep - just another piece of lying Arab propaganda which you have obviously swallowed hook line and sinker.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 7 April 2016 6:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
Yabba yabba yabba, your response conclusively shows you as a shill for the Zionists cause.

You also included text which included "The Palestine Arab Congress "

So please explain how we can have 'Patestine' which you constantly deny ever existed, and obviously 'the Congress' implies these people must be Palestinians! Go figure, more of your false claims debunked, and with your evidence to boot.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 8 April 2016 1:35:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Geoff

You state:
"So please explain how we can have 'Palestine' which you constantly deny ever existed, and obviously 'the Congress' implies these people must be Palestinians! "

Simple:
1. I have never denied Palestine ever existed - proven by my constant referral to the "Mandate for Palestine", "former Palestine" and even "Palestine" in the headings of so many of my published articles.

2. The members of the Palestine Arab Congress were Arabs - not Jews, or "others" who also happened to be living in Palestine in 1921 - as the British Government's Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine in 1920 confirms:

"There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or—a small number—are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.

3. The term "Palestinians" was invented by the PLO in 1964 to confer that title on Arabs alone to the exclusion of all non-Arab residents in former Palestine (which also included today's Jordan). As racist and supremacist as you can get - but obviously totally acceptable to you. Jews, Christians and others don't count - only Arabs.

Of course you throw up these laughable statements because you have never heard about the Palestine Arab Congress - which blows up your spurious and unsubstantiated claim that "the colonial carving up of middle eastern lands was again done without any authority or approval of the people's living in these lands at the time."

I can't conclude that you have been brainwashed because I am not sure whether you have a brain.
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 9 April 2016 2:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello David,

You have resorted to personal nastiness.

Brainless yo say, hardly, I was once tested and at the time invited to join the MENSA organisation due to my scoring, but being one who dislikes labels, declined the invitation.

It is obvious from your long history of posting on OLO you have a stored wealth of data which you purport to support your claims.

This is, unfortunately a sign of one desperate to seek approval and ratification of your biased claims.

You are desperately seeking confirmation and vindication for your claims.

You are, in my opinion, a weak and sad little man. You constantly need to vent your hatred in vile posts which clearly articulate a false narrative which infects your whole being. A clear sign of sociopathic tendencies is evident, which portray your vested interest in unmitigated support for genocidal tendency and a pathological and immoral need to support the murder of innocent civilians in a prison like environment.

Your vehement and unilateral bias places you amongst other vehicles of history, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and more recently relevant Bush, Cheney! Pearle, Wolfowitz (sic) etc etc.

You are a pathetic individual and I am glad you keep posting. Each time you do you expose you weaknesses, your banal appreciation of the virtues of freedom, equality, humanity and evidence you have little or no conscience for true justice and human rights.

You are a pure Zionist shill and I will treat you as such each and every time you post.

Your childlike demands against Armchair Critic expose you for what you really are, a weak, approval seeking spoilt child, grow up, it's not too late.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Sunday, 10 April 2016 3:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Geoff

Thanks for the character reference. Like all your comments - your remarks are totally unsubstantiated by any facts to support them and constitute a pathetic attempt to divert attention from your claims which I have demonstrated to be clearly false and misleading.

You state:
"It is obvious from your long history of posting on OLO you have a stored wealth of data which you purport to support your claims."

Correct for once. It is called knowledge of this long running Jewish-Arab conflict - something you patently lack.

I have given you examples of my stored wealth of data to dismiss your two latest claims as outright lies:

1."So please explain how we can have 'Palestine' which you constantly deny ever existed, and obviously 'the Congress' implies these people must be Palestinians! "

2."Likewise any talk about the Mandate, the land known as Jordan etc etc is also mute because the colonial carving up of middle eastern lands was again done without any authority or approval of the people's living in these lands at the time."

You have no answer or response to the evidence I presented to you from my stored wealth of data exposing these two statements as a load of rubbish.

What intrigues me is where you got the information from that you relied on to make your above two unsubstantiated comments.

I have shown mine to you in chapter and verse. Show me yours.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 10 April 2016 5:30:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#David

Try this, it proves all you claims wrong.

You can have all the data in the world, it does not make you correct though!

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

Add this as evidence of some of the wonderful people you keep company with

http://www.unz.com/jpetras/the-rise-of-the-jewish-policy-elite-meritocracy-myth-and-power/

You see David I know where you are trying to drag me and it won't work.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Sunday, 10 April 2016 5:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Geoff

I read the two articles to which you referred me.

Both contain the most vile and venomous statements of Jew-hatred one could ever hope to read.

You are in step with those other three Jew-hating groups - the PLO, Hamas and the Arab League. Thanks for coming out. I guess it has always been only a matter of time.

All for one - one for all.

OK - so that explains why you hate Jews and indeed reinforces my view expressed on many occasions that you are a Jew hater.

But surprise, surprise- neither of these articles said anything at all to substantiate the truth of your following false and deceptive statements:

1."So please explain how we can have 'Palestine' which you constantly deny ever existed, and obviously 'the Congress' implies these people must be Palestinians! "

2."Likewise any talk about the Mandate, the land known as Jordan etc etc is also mute because the colonial carving up of middle eastern lands was again done without any authority or approval of the people's living in these lands at the time."

I gave you my clear and detailed evidence to substantiate that both your statements were outright lies.

You have not disputed my evidence after two opportunities to do so.

What kind of insanity then prompts you to make this stupid claim:
"You can have all the data in the world, it does not make you correct though!"

Really? What then makes a person correct in your opinion?

Incredible that you still want to keep on digging your own grave with such stupid and nonsensical comments.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 10 April 2016 6:44:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

The two articles in question hurt eh? Well the truth always does.

I can't be bothered keeping this tit for tat going, it's pointless, you won't accept reality, your problem not mine.

My previous posts conclusively respond to the two points you insist I reply to. If you can't understand this, that is your problem not mine.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Sunday, 10 April 2016 9:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have just read this thread. It is very acrimonious and I am hereby warning all of you that if anyone from this point on accuses anyone else of lying, or being brainless or similar accusations, I will delete their post and suspend them for a time to be decided.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 10 April 2016 10:30:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Geoff

Poor fella.

The two Jew-hating articles you presented don't hurt me. They hurt you by exposing you as a Jew-hater who stupidly devours this kind of tripe to feed your irrational hatred.

Wallow in it mate.

You have now had three opportunities to discredit the facts I presented to you from my "stored wealth of data" to destroy your false and unsubstantiated statements - but you have again produced zilch.

There was never any tit for tat. There was only disaster after disaster after disaster for you.You exposed yourself as someone who is prepared to mouth the kind of lies trotted out by Arab propagandists that they also cannot - like you - substantiate when put to the test. Add to this your exposing yourself as a rabid Jew-hater and you don't come out of our exchange with any credibility or respectability at all.

I am glad that you have at least had the commonsense to call it a day and stop making an even bigger fool of yourself than you have up till now..
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 10 April 2016 10:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy