It’s a bad look when you respond to an imaginary post that suits your fantasy rather than to what was written. What evidence do you have that Israel is sending money to Ukraine? In other words, you claim a “fact based skepticism” without providing any facts. What I wrote is pretty easy to confirm.
It’s a bad look when you respond to an imaginary post that suits your fantasy rather than to what was written. What evidence do you have that Israel is sending money to Ukraine? In other words, you claim a “fact based skepticism” without providing any facts. What I wrote is pretty easy to confirm.
For what it’s worth, you don’t gain any credibility by resorting to the strange shorthand of “Ukraine.” But perhaps your goal is not to be taken seriously.
Huh? I was writing for the reading enabled. This is from you -“ Israel did take a stand when it opposed the Russian invasion. It also has provided millions in humanitarian aid to Ukraine ”.
It was your first sentence. I was simply replying to it.
It’s not every day that someone describes their own post as imaginary. Fantasy? Are you unwell? If so may you have a speedy recovery.
I see, apparently you misread “millions in humanitarian aid” not as in-kind aid but as “millions to buy their own aid.”
If you also want to say that all money is fungible, then I guess every time Israel sends its disaster relief teams and field hospitals to a country in need, that Israel redirecting US dollars.
Aside from engaging in the silly “-washing” rhetoric, it is evident that you have no actual knowledge of how Obama’s military assistance package with Israel works.
I don’t need to. I know how Israel works and their treatment of the Palestinians says all you need to know about their lack of human empathy and the ethos behind their behaviour.
You have no problem with Israel sending aid with one hand and taking it with the other, is that it? Or is the sending of aid just a finagle anyway? That aid you send to anyone, if you actually do, should go to Gaza, where you force people to live like animals.
I don’t know why you feel the need to code words for your apparent issues with Jews. What do you really mean by “their lack of human empathy and the ethos behind their behavior” and by “finagle”?
As to Gaza, your objection should be directed at Hamas which embezzles millions in foreign aid. Even then you must surely be aware of the beachfront mansions, five star hotels and restaurants, well stocked malls and private clubs (including polo and horse racing among other things) that exist in Gaza. The images are all easily accessible but as you pretend to “know” how things work, the Palestinians who post all this information must be Zionist agents hard at work on Photoshop. There are none so blind, George.
First sentence - ad hom again. There is no surer sign of a weak position than to try to make the discussion about me. It’s what people do who are either bone-lazy, fact-free or pig-ignorant, or incapable of rebuttal, or all of the above. It’s not a substitute for honest debate, something of which you seem incapable of.
What do I mean? You know what I mean and so does everyone else. Like the near unanimity of members voting to condemn Israel at the UN.
You are so good at picking up anti-Israel sentiment simply because there is so much of it, and you have experienced so much of it, mostly earned. There is very little prejudice , but lots of post-judice. So stop the innuendo of anti-semitism. When you accused Mandela and Tutu of it because they drew attention to the plight of the Palestinians you made the term near meaningless.
Why so defensive? I simply asked you to explain what you meant. Quite inadvertently, in this response you have let the cat out of the bag. Somehow Matthew 12:37 springs to mind.
By the way, Mandela often spoke in favor of Israel. as to Archbishop Tutu, his views on things pertaining to Jews generally was in line with now discredited Christian theology and anti-Jewish discourse. That’s not to say he didn’t do many great things, only that along with every human being he was not some paragon of perfection.
But, as I have said, you are entitled to your opinion. I’m just probing it for its basis and I think you’ve made them fairly clear.
It’s a bad look when you respond to an imaginary post that suits your fantasy rather than to what was written. What evidence do you have that Israel is sending money to Ukraine? In other words, you claim a “fact based skepticism” without providing any facts. What I wrote is pretty easy to confirm.
For what it’s worth, you don’t gain any credibility by resorting to the strange shorthand of “Ukraine.” But perhaps your goal is not to be taken seriously.
Huh? I was writing for the reading enabled. This is from you -“ Israel did take a stand when it opposed the Russian invasion. It also has provided millions in humanitarian aid to Ukraine ”.
It was your first sentence. I was simply replying to it.
It’s not every day that someone describes their own post as imaginary. Fantasy? Are you unwell? If so may you have a speedy recovery.
I see, apparently you misread “millions in humanitarian aid” not as in-kind aid but as “millions to buy their own aid.”
If you also want to say that all money is fungible, then I guess every time Israel sends its disaster relief teams and field hospitals to a country in need, that Israel redirecting US dollars.
Aside from engaging in the silly “-washing” rhetoric, it is evident that you have no actual knowledge of how Obama’s military assistance package with Israel works.
I don’t need to. I know how Israel works and their treatment of the Palestinians says all you need to know about their lack of human empathy and the ethos behind their behaviour.
You have no problem with Israel sending aid with one hand and taking it with the other, is that it? Or is the sending of aid just a finagle anyway? That aid you send to anyone, if you actually do, should go to Gaza, where you force people to live like animals.
I don’t know why you feel the need to code words for your apparent issues with Jews. What do you really mean by “their lack of human empathy and the ethos behind their behavior” and by “finagle”?
As to Gaza, your objection should be directed at Hamas which embezzles millions in foreign aid. Even then you must surely be aware of the beachfront mansions, five star hotels and restaurants, well stocked malls and private clubs (including polo and horse racing among other things) that exist in Gaza. The images are all easily accessible but as you pretend to “know” how things work, the Palestinians who post all this information must be Zionist agents hard at work on Photoshop. There are none so blind, George.
First sentence - ad hom again. There is no surer sign of a weak position than to try to make the discussion about me. It’s what people do who are either bone-lazy, fact-free or pig-ignorant, or incapable of rebuttal, or all of the above. It’s not a substitute for honest debate, something of which you seem incapable of.
What do I mean? You know what I mean and so does everyone else. Like the near unanimity of members voting to condemn Israel at the UN.
You are so good at picking up anti-Israel sentiment simply because there is so much of it, and you have experienced so much of it, mostly earned. There is very little prejudice , but lots of post-judice. So stop the innuendo of anti-semitism. When you accused Mandela and Tutu of it because they drew attention to the plight of the Palestinians you made the term near meaningless.
Why so defensive? I simply asked you to explain what you meant. Quite inadvertently, in this response you have let the cat out of the bag. Somehow Matthew 12:37 springs to mind.
By the way, Mandela often spoke in favor of Israel. as to Archbishop Tutu, his views on things pertaining to Jews generally was in line with now discredited Christian theology and anti-Jewish discourse. That’s not to say he didn’t do many great things, only that along with every human being he was not some paragon of perfection.
But, as I have said, you are entitled to your opinion. I’m just probing it for its basis and I think you’ve made them fairly clear.
You have delusions and not just of grandeur.
That's how the brethren roll here.