61
   

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 05:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You don't know how to 'give up' on issues that are not important.

Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 06:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You,
Quote:
And I am saying your grammar is terrible...way below average.


Okay, I have over 91,000 posts on a2k. Prove that my 'grammar is terrible and way below average' compared to all the posters on a2k?

If you're using your personal standard, you can forget it; it's not worth the cyberspace you'll waste. Your credibility is near zero on most subjects - even though you think you're smart and without weaknesses.

Get others on a2k to agree with you; almost anyone else besides oralboy, BillRM, and those others who seem to be your companions in ignorance.


I will continue to point out your grammatical errors...and the other writing mistakes that you make, ci.

Let others decide what they want to decide.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 06:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You don't know how to 'give up' on issues that are not important.




Perhaps so...but apparently neither do you.

And you seem to think that your poor grammar skills are important.
Wink
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 06:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:


You are not particularly proficient...and I will continue to point out your errors.

Point out mine if you choose.


OK.


Frank Apisa wrote:
That is a particularly poorly constructed sentence, ci.


This is a particularly poorly constructed sentence.

This may help.


Quote:
Difference between this and that


This and these are used to talk about people and things which are close to the speaker.

Can you put this book on that table? (Here the book is lying in a position close to the speaker but the table isn’t.)

Do you like these ear-rings?

Is this your pen?

Can you help me tie this knot?

We use that and those to talk about people and things which are more distant from the speaker. That and those are also used to talk about people and things which are not present.

Can you put this chair in that corner over there?

That was an interesting story you told us yesterday.

Is that your car parked over there?

This and these can also refer to situations which are going on.

I like this song.

Listen to this message. (NOT Listen to that message.)

That and those can refer to experiences which have just finished.

Who said that?

That is used in expressions like that’s it and that’s that.

Okay. That’s it. I’m leaving now.

Well, that’s that. Another day’s work finished.

On the telephone

On the telephone, British people use this to identify themselves, and that to ask about the hearer’s identity.

Hello. This is Jane. Is that Ruth?

Americans may also use this to ask about the hearer’s identity.

Hello. This is Alice. Who is this?

Read more at http://www.englishpractice.com/improve/difference-7/#67koXsGMt1ASdkb7.99

As you had just quoted CI you should have used this, not that.

Now can we stop this bullshit and talk about Israel?

Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 06:49 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:


You are not particularly proficient...and I will continue to point out your errors.

Point out mine if you choose.


OK.


Frank Apisa wrote:
That is a particularly poorly constructed sentence, ci.


This is a particularly poorly constructed sentence.

This may help.


Quote:
Difference between this and that


This and these are used to talk about people and things which are close to the speaker.

Can you put this book on that table? (Here the book is lying in a position close to the speaker but the table isn’t.)

Do you like these ear-rings?

Is this your pen?

Can you help me tie this knot?

We use that and those to talk about people and things which are more distant from the speaker. That and those are also used to talk about people and things which are not present.

Can you put this chair in that corner over there?

That was an interesting story you told us yesterday.

Is that your car parked over there?

This and these can also refer to situations which are going on.

I like this song.

Listen to this message. (NOT Listen to that message.)

That and those can refer to experiences which have just finished.

Who said that?

That is used in expressions like that’s it and that’s that.

Okay. That’s it. I’m leaving now.

Well, that’s that. Another day’s work finished.

On the telephone

On the telephone, British people use this to identify themselves, and that to ask about the hearer’s identity.

Hello. This is Jane. Is that Ruth?

Americans may also use this to ask about the hearer’s identity.

Hello. This is Alice. Who is this?

Read more at http://www.englishpractice.com/improve/difference-7/#67koXsGMt1ASdkb7.99

As you had just quoted CI you should have used this, not that.

Now can we stop this bullshit and talk about Israel?




If you want to talk about Israel...talk about Israel.

I was pointing to ci's sentence...and I said, "That is a poorly constructed sentence"...which is correct.

If I had said "This is a poorly constructed sentence", it could have meant that I was pointing to my own sentence...and that would have made my sentence a poorly constructed sentence.

It wasn't and I wasn't.

So...what do you have to say about Israel, Izzy?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 07:08 pm
From Huff Post; Hamas doesn't care about the Palestinians.
Quote:
Change of Priorities
Hamas, started in 1980s as an Islamic Resistance Movement against the Israeli occupation. The famous scenes of children and youth resisting Israeli soldiers with nothing more than stones changed the rules of the game. The relatively "peaceful" resistance was often met with brutal force from the Israeli army, and members of the Knesset questioned IDF practices in breaking the bones of those little children. Hamas was so effective that it probably was one of the reasons why Israel was forced into signing Oslo Accords with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Hamas was perhaps more effective as a resistance movement than a ruling power. As a resistance movement, it could always act as an informal army of the Palestinian cause, inflicting damage on Israel without giving an excuse to Israel for retaliation on Palestinian population.

After seizing power in 2007, it became increasingly evident that Hamas's priorities changed. Survival and sustaining its position in power became Hamas's first priority. The Palestinian cause had to take a back seat. In pursuing its own agenda, new words and titles replaced old ones. Instead of talking about restoring Palestinian rights, the news talked about lifting Gaza's blockade. Instead of demanding returning occupied lands and ensuring the right of return to Palestinian refugees, the new narrative was about the Fatah and Hamas dispute and the opening of Rafah crossing with Egypt! Hamas has reduced the Palestinian cause from one where Palestinians deserve a viable State to live on like any other nation, to a series of petty quarrels and disputes over side issues.
buttflake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 07:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
From Huff Post; Hamas doesn't care about the Palestinians.


That must be why Palestinians voted for them. It worked with Obama.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 08:16 pm
Quote:
Censured over shelter deaths, Israel declares seven-hour Gaza truce
Reuters By By Nidal al-Mughrabi and Dan Williams
1 hour ago
United Nations worker gestures after what witnesses said was an Israeli air strike outside a U.N.-run school, where displaced Palestinians take refuge, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip .


By Nidal al-Mughrabi and Dan Williams

Ten dead in strike on school in new Gaza fighting Reuters

GAZA/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said it would unilaterally hold fire in most of the Gaza Strip on Monday to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid and allow some of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by an almost four-week-old war to go back to home.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 01:15 am
@oralloy,

Quote:
you Nazi scumbag, can't you go catch cancer or something?


I see you answer my comparison with a crude personal attack.
Must have been pretty accurate, then. You don't like what you see in the mirror.

Palestinians get blamed for all manner of ills in Israel: just like history reports, just like the Nazi slogan:
"Die Juden sind unser Unglueck"

Demonise them, then you can get rid of them.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 02:54 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I was pointing to ci's sentence...and I said, "That is a poorly constructed sentence"...which is correct.

If I had said "This is a poorly constructed sentence", it could have meant that I was pointing to my own sentence...and that would have made my sentence a poorly constructed sentence.


You just won't admit when you're wrong even when it's been clearly explained to you. That could account for why you're living from one paycheck to another and CI can afford to travel around the world at the drop of a hat. You should either have said 'this is' or 'that was.'

Back to Israel, the tunnels supposedly used by terrorists just to attack Israel are an important life line, and used for all manner of things.

Quote:
The network of tunnels that snake underneath the border between Gaza and Egypt are dark, dingy and dangerous, but they have proved invaluable to transport supplies and fuel past the Israeli blockade. One commodity to be smuggled inside impoverished Gaza, though, is raising eyebrows: KFC fried chicken.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that a local Gazan delivery company, al-Yamama, offers to spirit KFC buckets from an Egyptian KFC 35 miles away through the tunnels for about $30 (100 shekels).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/gaza-kfc-smuggler-al-yamama_n_3286299.html
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/05/16/world/GAZA/GAZA-articleLarge.jpg

Frank Apisa
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 03:23 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I was pointing to ci's sentence...and I said, "That is a poorly constructed sentence"...which is correct.

If I had said "This is a poorly constructed sentence", it could have meant that I was pointing to my own sentence...and that would have made my sentence a poorly constructed sentence.


You just won't admit when you're wrong even when it's been clearly explained to you. That could account for why you're living from one paycheck to another and CI can afford to travel around the world at the drop of a hat. You should either have said 'this is' or 'that was.'


I acknowledge when I am wrong...which I often am. In this case, however, I am not.

In this case, the wording I used is perfectly appropriate and acceptable. (Just as the word "this" is in the previous sentence...although I could have phrased it, "In that case, the wording I used was perfectly appropriate and acceptable." Both forms are acceptable...both are appropriate.)

Ci's use of "is" did not agree in number with the subject of his sentence (people)...and is, as I pointed out, just wrong.

I acknowledge that an argument legitimately CAN be made for using "that was" in preference to "that is." But I also respectfully suggest that the decision on which of those forms to use falls mostly into a preference situation.

Just consider MY sentence pointing out the error in ci's sentence to be "closer" to me...and immediate in time. "That is a poorly constructed sentence" is fine.

But saying "the people...is" (as ci did)...IS FLAT OUT WRONG. No argument can be logically be made that it is correct as a preference.



Quote:

Back to Israel, the tunnels supposedly used by terrorists just to attack Israel are an important life line, and used for all manner of things.

Quote:
The network of tunnels that snake underneath the border between Gaza and Egypt are dark, dingy and dangerous, but they have proved invaluable to transport supplies and fuel past the Israeli blockade. One commodity to be smuggled inside impoverished Gaza, though, is raising eyebrows: KFC fried chicken.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that a local Gazan delivery company, al-Yamama, offers to spirit KFC buckets from an Egyptian KFC 35 miles away through the tunnels for about $30 (100 shekels).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/gaza-kfc-smuggler-al-yamama_n_3286299.html
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/05/16/world/GAZA/GAZA-articleLarge.jpg




I agree. The tunnels can be used for all sorts of things...including circumventing what is becoming intolerable blockades of things the Palestinians need or want...and are unable to get through conventional means. I am surprised KFC is one of those things...but stranger things have happened.

In any case, the silver lining in this particular Israeli adventure will almost certainly be that unbridled acceptance of what Israel does by American politicians will come under more intense scrutiny by the voting public. At least I hope there is a silver lining...and that it takes a form of the sort I am suggesting.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 03:35 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, the silver lining in this particular Israeli adventure will almost certainly be that unbridled acceptance of what Israel does by American politicians will come under more intense scrutiny by the voting public. At least I hope there is a silver lining...and that it takes a form of the sort I am suggesting.


I'm with you on that. Over here, where are leadership has usually slavishly followed America's lead, David Cameron has been shamed into speaking out. Although it may not seem much, it is the most critical thing a British prime minister has said about Israel since the ending of the British mandate.

Quote:
The United Nations was right to speak out against an Israeli attack near a UN-run school in Gaza, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

Palestinian officials said at least 10 people died in the attack on Sunday.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the attack "a moral outrage and a criminal act".

Mr Cameron would not say if he agreed with those words. He thought it was "an appalling loss of life", adding that civilians must not be targeted.

He told BBC Breakfast there had to to be an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire", adding that the "fastest way to stop this conflict" would be if Hamas rocket attacks on Israel stopped.

His comments follow a row between Ed Miliband and Downing Street after the Labour leader said Mr Cameron was "wrong" not to oppose Israel's attacks.

Speaking about the recent attack, Mr Cameron said the UK government had been "very clear that there needs to be an immediate, comprehensive, humanitarian ceasefire and that we want this conflict to stop - and we obviously think that it's an appalling the loss of life".

Asked about Mr Ban's comments that the strike was a "moral outrage", the prime minister said: "I think the UN is right to speak out in the way that it has because international law is very clear that there mustn't be the targeting of civilians or the targeting of schools, if that's what's happened."

Pressed on whether international law had been broken, Mr Cameron added: "I'm not an international lawyer... but international law is very, very clear that use of force always has to be proportionate and civilians should not be targeted."

But Mr Miliband suggested at the weekend that the prime minister was out of step with public feeling in Britain, stressing: "The government needs to send a much clearer message to Israel that its actions in Gaza are unacceptable and unjustifiable.

"What I want to hear from David Cameron is that he believes that Israel's actions in Gaza are wrong and unjustified, and we haven't heard that from him. I think that's what the British public are thinking as they are seeing these tragic events unfolding on our television screens."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28638491

In May next year we're having a general election which is still too close to call, but Ed Miliband could be prime minister. Ed has been leading the criticism of Israel, and being Jewish himself, can say so without fears of being labelled an anti Semite.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 03:46 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, the silver lining in this particular Israeli adventure will almost certainly be that unbridled acceptance of what Israel does by American politicians will come under more intense scrutiny by the voting public. At least I hope there is a silver lining...and that it takes a form of the sort I am suggesting.


I'm with you on that. Over here, where are leadership has usually slavishly followed America's lead, David Cameron has been shamed into speaking out. Although it may not seem much, it is the most critical thing a British prime minister has said about Israel since the ending of the British mandate.

Quote:
The United Nations was right to speak out against an Israeli attack near a UN-run school in Gaza, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

Palestinian officials said at least 10 people died in the attack on Sunday.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the attack "a moral outrage and a criminal act".

Mr Cameron would not say if he agreed with those words. He thought it was "an appalling loss of life", adding that civilians must not be targeted.

He told BBC Breakfast there had to to be an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire", adding that the "fastest way to stop this conflict" would be if Hamas rocket attacks on Israel stopped.

His comments follow a row between Ed Miliband and Downing Street after the Labour leader said Mr Cameron was "wrong" not to oppose Israel's attacks.

Speaking about the recent attack, Mr Cameron said the UK government had been "very clear that there needs to be an immediate, comprehensive, humanitarian ceasefire and that we want this conflict to stop - and we obviously think that it's an appalling the loss of life".

Asked about Mr Ban's comments that the strike was a "moral outrage", the prime minister said: "I think the UN is right to speak out in the way that it has because international law is very clear that there mustn't be the targeting of civilians or the targeting of schools, if that's what's happened."

Pressed on whether international law had been broken, Mr Cameron added: "I'm not an international lawyer... but international law is very, very clear that use of force always has to be proportionate and civilians should not be targeted."

But Mr Miliband suggested at the weekend that the prime minister was out of step with public feeling in Britain, stressing: "The government needs to send a much clearer message to Israel that its actions in Gaza are unacceptable and unjustifiable.

"What I want to hear from David Cameron is that he believes that Israel's actions in Gaza are wrong and unjustified, and we haven't heard that from him. I think that's what the British public are thinking as they are seeing these tragic events unfolding on our television screens."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28638491

In May next year we're having a general election which is still too close to call, but Ed Miliband could be prime minister. Ed has been leading the criticism of Israel, and being Jewish himself, can say so without fears of being labelled an anti Semite.


Over here, Izzy, the term anti-Semite is much over-used...and seems to pop into almost any conversation where the conduct of Israel is called into question.

There are times I wish the US would simply get out of the equation...entirely. We cannot be considered honest brokers or mediators in that area...we are reflexively backers of the Israeli position in damn near everything.

OUR conduct help motivate the Israelis to be as intransigent as they are at times...but I guess the rest of the world already knows that.

But, like the NRA...the Israeli lobby holds the political future of many politicians in its hands...and politicians don't like to have swords hanging over their heads.

Not sure how this problem will be resolved...but I hope the severity and brutality of this latest move on the part of the Israelis motivates the voting public to demand more accountability from this side of that fence.

We'll see.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 04:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
If the term anti-Boer had had half as much traction as anti-Semite, Nelson Mandela would have died in Robben island and apartheid South Africa would be alive and well today.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 10:25 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
I see you answer my comparison with a crude personal attack.

Your anti-Semitsm is vile and beyond the pale, and I am right to denounce you as the Nazi scum that you actually are.
McTag
 
  5  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 11:31 am
@oralloy,

Quote:
Your anti-Semitsm is vile and beyond the pale, and I am right to denounce you as the Nazi scum that you actually are.


Really? Please explain how my criticism of the actions of Israel makes me an anti-semite.
If "Nazi scum" is the worst insult you can muster, please explain why Israel is using Nazi tactics and philosophy as I have outlined.
cicerone imposter
 
  6  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 12:47 pm
@McTag,
To oralboy et al, pointing out genocide by the Zionists is vile because they see 'anti-Semitism' as something more vile than killing other humans. Strange values to say the least.

0 Replies
 
buttflake
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 12:58 pm
@McTag,
Quote:
If "Nazi scum" is the worst insult you can muster,


The Grand Mufti of Palestine allied with Hitler and had input toward the final solution. That is historical fact. The ideology of Islam is almost identical to Nazism.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 01:11 pm
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
Please explain how my criticism of the actions of Israel makes me an anti-semite.

You aren't criticizing Israel. You are spewing horrible anti-Semitic lies about Israel.


McTag wrote:
If "Nazi scum" is the worst insult you can muster,

That was not an insult. That was a factual accusation.


McTag wrote:
please explain why Israel is using Nazi tactics and philosophy as I have outlined.

Please explain why you raped a four year old child this morning.
buttflake
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 01:22 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Please explain why you raped a four year old child this morning.


Sure they aren't married? Or just waiting until she turns six.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
"Progressives(TM)" and Israel - Discussion by gungasnake
Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Abbas Embraces the Islamists - Discussion by Advocate
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 09:00:10