Tens of Thousands Attend pro-Palestinian Rally in Washington DC

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

I provided a link from Britanica. Should be unbiased.

Unbiased facts but cherry-picked, oh wait, yes biased presentation by you.

So Encyclopedia Britanica is biased.

*sigh*

Well I tried.

Come on mate, it does have Britain in the name!

Is leaving out the bits that don't fit your narrative also a British thing?

How could I leave out bits in sourced material?

I also said cherry picked. How can you not cherry pick sourced material, I don't know, how can you not?

So an encyclopedia is biased now.

Gotcha!

No, you don't gotcha me.

You cherry picked only the passage that fit your narrative.

No.

I picked a bloody encyclopedia!

(dammit, there I go again, crap, maybe I am British)

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

I provided a link from Britanica. Should be unbiased.

Unbiased facts but cherry-picked, oh wait, yes biased presentation by you.

So Encyclopedia Britanica is biased.

*sigh*

Well I tried.

Come on mate, it does have Britain in the name!

Is leaving out the bits that don't fit your narrative also a British thing?

How could I leave out bits in sourced material?

I also said cherry picked. How can you not cherry pick sourced material, I don't know, how can you not?

So an encyclopedia is biased now.

Gotcha!

I picked a bloody encyclopedia!

(dammit, there I go again, crap, maybe I am British)

Everybody is in times of great stress mate!
Next phase would be the ten pints of lager and a vindaloo just before having a punchup on Saturday night!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

I provided a link from Britanica. Should be unbiased.

Unbiased facts but cherry-picked, oh wait, yes biased presentation by you.

So Encyclopedia Britanica is biased.

*sigh*

Well I tried.

Come on mate, it does have Britain in the name!

Is leaving out the bits that don't fit your narrative also a British thing?

How could I leave out bits in sourced material?

I also said cherry picked. How can you not cherry pick sourced material, I don't know, how can you not?

So an encyclopedia is biased now.

Gotcha!

No, you don't gotcha me.

You cherry picked only the passage that fit your narrative.

No.

I picked a bloody encyclopedia!

(dammit, there I go again, crap, maybe I am British)

You cherry picked from a bloody encyclopedia...maybe your ancestors were British?

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

I provided a link from Britanica. Should be unbiased.

Unbiased facts but cherry-picked, oh wait, yes biased presentation by you.

So Encyclopedia Britanica is biased.

*sigh*

Well I tried.

Come on mate, it does have Britain in the name!

Is leaving out the bits that don't fit your narrative also a British thing?

How could I leave out bits in sourced material?

I also said cherry picked. How can you not cherry pick sourced material, I don't know, how can you not?

So an encyclopedia is biased now.

Gotcha!

I picked a bloody encyclopedia!

(dammit, there I go again, crap, maybe I am British)

Everybody is in times of great stress mate!
Next phase would be the ten pints of lager and a vindaloo just before having a punchup on Saturday night!

If I start shouting, "Man United. . . what-a-load-of-rubish" then you'll know.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The only encyclopedia and historical facts are the ones that quintessentone provides in all his propaganda threads that supports Hamas palestine terrorist.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

I provided a link from Britanica. Should be unbiased.

Unbiased facts but cherry-picked, oh wait, yes biased presentation by you.

So Encyclopedia Britanica is biased.

*sigh*

Well I tried.

Come on mate, it does have Britain in the name!

Is leaving out the bits that don't fit your narrative also a British thing?

How could I leave out bits in sourced material?

I also said cherry picked. How can you not cherry pick sourced material, I don't know, how can you not?

So an encyclopedia is biased now.

Gotcha!

No, you don't gotcha me.

You cherry picked only the passage that fit your narrative.

No.

I picked a bloody encyclopedia!

(dammit, there I go again, crap, maybe I am British)

You cherry picked from a bloody encyclopedia...maybe your ancestors were British?

Moms from Scotland but that's besides the point.

I just offered the link.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

I provided a link from Britanica. Should be unbiased.

Unbiased facts but cherry-picked, oh wait, yes biased presentation by you.

So Encyclopedia Britanica is biased.

*sigh*

Well I tried.

Come on mate, it does have Britain in the name!

Is leaving out the bits that don't fit your narrative also a British thing?

How could I leave out bits in sourced material?

I also said cherry picked. How can you not cherry pick sourced material, I don't know, how can you not?

So an encyclopedia is biased now.

Gotcha!

I picked a bloody encyclopedia!

(dammit, there I go again, crap, maybe I am British)

Everybody is in times of great stress mate!
Next phase would be the ten pints of lager and a vindaloo just before having a punchup on Saturday night!

If I start shouting, "Man United. . . what-a-load-of-rubish" then you'll know.

Haha Im a liverpool fan so wouldn't disagree with you at all!

a reply to: DBCowboy

As a Spurs fan, I'd tend to agree?

a reply to: quintessentone

just gonna reply to one answer you posted. all the rest are the same thing you been posting all along.

Read it and weep. en.wikipedia.o

how ignorant are you? do you realize who the Jewish Militants were fighting against at that time right. it was both the british and arabs.

they were fighting the british because they were enforcing new stricter rules on them and after a arab revolt and realizing that britian intended for a independent palastine with a majority arab population in control and limiting the number of Jews who could immigrate there,after promising them a land of their own, they were fighting arabs because arabs were attacking them for moving into a land that the british had gave them with the agreement of the rest of the nations party to the declarations.

so in other words they were provoked and attacked and were defending something that was promised to them, not just by God but the parties to the declaration for a land of their own.

i tell your researching skills are sorely lacking and your spinning of facts shameful.

i will say this, the last one even though they say Israel it was Jewish Militants, that one could be considered a terror attack, or a war crime. but it was not the Israeli Government.

another thing i see just as many attacks by arabs as Jews on that list.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only encyclopedia and historical facts are the ones that quintessentone provides in all his propaganda threads that supports Hamas palestine terrorist.

I provide all the text and history from both sides not just the one side to fit a narrative.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

just gonna reply to one answer you posted. all the rest are the same thing you been posting all along.

Read it and weep. en.wikipedia.o

how ignorant are you? do you realize who the Jewish Militants were fighting against at that time right. it was both the british and arabs.

they were fighting the british because they were enforcing new stricter rules on them and after a arab revolt and realizing that britian intended for a independent palastine with a majority arab population in control and limiting the number of Jews who could immigrate there,after promising them a land of their own, they were fighting arabs because arabs were attacking them for moving into a land that the british had gave them with the agreement of the rest of the nations party to the declarations.

so in other words they were provoked and attacked defending something that was promised to them, not just by God but the parties to the declaration for a land of their own.

i tell your researching skills are sorely lacking and your spinning of facts shameful.

i will say this, the last one even though they say Israel it was Jewish Militants, that one could be considered a terror attack, or a war crime. but it was not the Israeli Government.

another thing i see just as many attacks by arabs as Jews on that list.

How about this one? Killings in the West Bank which was was under Israeli occupation.

Israeli forces killed 151 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and injured 9,875, according to OCHA-OPT, amid a surge of military incursions that involved excessive use of force, including unlawful killings and apparent extrajudicial executions.4 Defense for Children International-Palestine reported that Israeli forces or settlers killed 36 children across the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

On 11 May, Israeli soldiers killed Shirin Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-US Al Jazeera correspondent, and injured her colleague, while they were covering an Israeli army raid in Jenin Camp. In September, the Israeli authorities admitted that an Israeli soldier “likely” killed the journalist but concluded that no criminal offence had been committed.

www.amnesty.org... rritories/

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only encyclopedia and historical facts are the ones that quintessentone provides in all his propaganda threads that supports Hamas palestine terrorist.

I provide all the text and history from both sides not just the one side to fit a narrative.

A neutral encyclopedia entry is not biased.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only encyclopedia and historical facts are the ones that quintessentone provides in all his propaganda threads that supports Hamas palestine terrorist.

I provide all the text and history from both sides not just the one side to fit a narrative.

A neutral encyclopedia entry is not biased.

I never said it was, what you did was cherry pick your narrative and left out everything else.

a reply to: quintessentone

hey little troll that could link says

Page Not Found

bet you did that on purpose. besides Amnesty International is another left leaning source


then there's this, i knew i heard something about one of their guys,

n August 2015, The Times reported that Yasmin Hussein, then Amnesty's director of faith and human rights and previously its head of international advocacy and a prominent representative at the United Nations, had "undeclared private links to men alleged to be key players in a secretive network of global Islamists", including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.[66][67] Ms. Hussein's husband, Wael Musabbeh and a Bradford community trust, of which both Mr Musabbeh and Ms Hussein were directors, were alleged by the United Arab Emirates to be part of a financial and ideological network linking the Muslim Brotherhood to its affiliate in the UAE, which the UAE government in 2013 accused of trying to overthrow the government.[67] Amnesty said it knew in 2013 of the alleged links between the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr Musabbeh, and the Bradford trust, but did not realize there was any connection to Ms Hussein, Musabbeh's wife of 20 years; it also challenged the fairness of the trial.[67] Mr Musabbeh said he had no connection to the Muslim Brotherhood and was not an Islamist.[67]
Alleged ties to Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only encyclopedia and historical facts are the ones that quintessentone provides in all his propaganda threads that supports Hamas palestine terrorist.

I provide all the text and history from both sides not just the one side to fit a narrative.

A neutral encyclopedia entry is not biased.

I never said it was, what you did was cherry pick your narrative and left out everything else.

Uhhhhh, because I didn't want to submit a biased source.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Check the timeline UK was in charge of the region, they put the Palestinians there first then in a great act of love they promised the jews to have a place amongst those who hate them most, and being religious retards they gobbled it like it was a promise from God.

It was meh during 28 years but rather stable thanks to the UK holding the two religious retards in check. Within the year of Israels declaration of independence things went south and they drew a line, expropriated Palestinians, I'm sure the daka could tell a story if they weren't systematically persecuted...

Like a mofo starting # in a ghetto...

They really deserve each other

a reply to: Terpene

the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917, the white papers of 1939 were issued after a arabs uprising from 1936 to 1939
The Great Revolt (Arabic: al-Thawra al- Kubra)[10] or The Great Palestinian Revolt (Thawrat Filastin al-Kubra),[11]

every Jewish attack from the wiki link he posted was in that time frame,

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

hey little troll that could link says

Page Not Found

bet you did that on purpose. besides Amnesty International is another left leaning source


then there's this, i knew i heard something about one of their guys,

n August 2015, The Times reported that Yasmin Hussein, then Amnesty's director of faith and human rights and previously its head of international advocacy and a prominent representative at the United Nations, had "undeclared private links to men alleged to be key players in a secretive network of global Islamists", including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.[66][67] Ms. Hussein's husband, Wael Musabbeh and a Bradford community trust, of which both Mr Musabbeh and Ms Hussein were directors, were alleged by the United Arab Emirates to be part of a financial and ideological network linking the Muslim Brotherhood to its affiliate in the UAE, which the UAE government in 2013 accused of trying to overthrow the government.[67] Amnesty said it knew in 2013 of the alleged links between the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr Musabbeh, and the Bradford trust, but did not realize there was any connection to Ms Hussein, Musabbeh's wife of 20 years; it also challenged the fairness of the trial.[67] Mr Musabbeh said he had no connection to the Muslim Brotherhood and was not an Islamist.[67]
Alleged ties to Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists

lol any source other than your narrative is a left leaning source and that includes all sources that actually report the truth.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only encyclopedia and historical facts are the ones that quintessentone provides in all his propaganda threads that supports Hamas palestine terrorist.

I provide all the text and history from both sides not just the one side to fit a narrative.

A neutral encyclopedia entry is not biased.

I never said it was, what you did was cherry pick your narrative and left out everything else.

Uhhhhh, because I didn't want to submit a biased source.

You didn't submit a biased source, you cherry picked a small part of it to fit your narrative.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only encyclopedia and historical facts are the ones that quintessentone provides in all his propaganda threads that supports Hamas palestine terrorist.

I provide all the text and history from both sides not just the one side to fit a narrative.

A neutral encyclopedia entry is not biased.

I never said it was, what you did was cherry pick your narrative and left out everything else.

Uhhhhh, because I didn't want to submit a biased source.

You didn't submit a biased source, you cherry picked a small part of it to fit your narrative.

No.

I provided the entire link.

Are you sure you know how links work?

I cannot edit or delete anything from a link.