On Jul 13, 5:46=A0pm, Gary Renzetti <lizg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Shlomo wrote:
\>
> > Huh? =A0Let address what you tried to say, point by point-
>
> > 1. =A0It's irrelevent as to how much a financial return that the Suez
> > Canal Company had returned. =A0It was the legal owner. =A0Nasser
wanted
> > the tolls himself to finance the Aswan Dam,
>
> Not for Aswan he didn't. He had already agreed to give the Soviets his
> cotton crop for five consecutive years to finance the High Dam.
>
> =A0 and so he STOLE it.
> Perhaps he did, and certainly in the opinion of the Suez Canal Company
> he did exactly that. And kudos to him for having the cojones to do so.
So let's see. First you claim he didn't steal the Suez Canal, and
then you justify the fact that he did. What you just said is no
different from the accused rapist saying that he never saw the victim
before in his life, and whatever happened between them was
consensual.
> At the time, he had three sources of foreign exchange. Tourism (not
> really developed then because of the political situation), cotton
> (mortgaged to finance the Aswan Dam), and Suez Canal revenues (which
> were going offshore with little benefit to Egypt). What were the izzies
> hoping to grab out of this? Sinai? I honestly don't know, but they
> hopped on the bandwagon for a reason. It wasn't the ditch, Britain and
> France could have taken it back by themselves, so what?
> Anyway, the Yanks under Eisenhower (great President btw, perhaps the
> last great one we've seen) quite rightly put a stop to that colonial
> exercise.
It doesn't change the fact that Nasser STOLE the Suez Canal.
> >=A0 Also, for whatever reason, he closed the Straits of Tiran, thus
bloc=
kading
> > Eilat (which is an act of war).
>
> Is it? Are they international waters? They are *now*, but were they
> *then*? I honestly don't know, but I'm thinking of the
> Bosperous/Dardenelles which are certainly Turkish and not international.
> =A0 The Russians have always needed permission from the Turks to pass
> these straits. If Tiran is similar, it would not be illegal to close
them=
..
Cutting off access to another nation's ****t is an ACT OF WAR, plain,
pure, and simple. If Turkey cuts off the Sea of Mamora access to the
Black Sea, any nation whose ****pping is affected has every right to
consider it an Act of War.
> > 2. =A0The Israeli action in the Sinai didn't start until AFTER
Nasser's
> > seizure of the canal and blockade of Eilat (an act of war, an act
> > Nasser repeated in May, 1967).
>
> True, but see my paragraph above. He didn't "blockade" Eliat(sp?), they
> were free to use the Gulf of Aqaba; he closed the straits.
He closed the access to Eilat, and that's an Act of War!
> > Bottom line, Nasser STOLE the canal from its LEGAL OWNERS. =A0The
prior
> > British withdrawal from the canal zone did not mean that the owners
> > gave up their legal possession.
>
> True. But he was right to have done so. the Canal Company should have
> seen the writing on the wall and negotiated a deal. Somehow, I can't
> shed a lot of tears for them.
The Suez Canal Company LEGALLY owned the canal. They didn't have to
see on threat of it being stolen by an Arab thief.
=2E
> >> As I said speaking and reading gibberish is not something I do.
>
> > And neither is getting your facts straight.
>
> What does not knowing and obscure foreign dialect mostly spoken in a
> rogue entity have to do with "getting my facts straight"?
In describing Arab/Israeli interactions, Yishuv is a word that one
should easily recognize.
> >>> It has been long established that most Syrian Arabs who lived in the
> >>> area that the British mapped as Palestine did not have 100's of
years
> >>> of residency. =A0Furthermore, except for some areas around the Sea
of
> >>> Galilee and Jerusalem, the area was virtually uninhabited by 1890,
> >>> which was just after the start of the Return.
>
> Yeah. The "land for a people without land" crapola. Sorry Stanley, but
> even Theodore Hertzl didn't believe that ****.
First, the Zionists never said that. Second, the Zionists didn't
displace Arabs; rather, they settled unused land.
> >> Even if that were true, it doesn't alter the fact that those people
ha=
d
> >> attacked nobody, they were the innocent victims of murdering zionist
> >> thugs. They were terrorized out by the zionist s***.
>
> > The Syrian Arabs of Palestine were not the innocent victims you
> > ****tray them to be, as I have already EXPLAINED to you.
>
> I have access to a copy of the Hasbara manual too, Stanley. You just
> spout the same foolishness.
So what is it Gary? When all else fails, just deny the FACTS and
repeat the Lies of Arab Liars Who Believe Their Own Lies?
\> > Everything you post ignore the realities that-
>
> > 1. =A0We are indigenous to Palestine
>
> No. The Shepardim have been living there longer than the Arabs, but are
> indigenous to Mesopotamia. The ashkekNazis are indigenous to Central
Asia=
..
Wrong, Gary. Most of the Jews who ended up in Poland, Lithuania,
Belarus, and Ukraine have been living Western Europe, from where the
Crusaders drove them out. They were not converts to Judaism, but
rather, direct descendants of those whose ancestry traces back to the
time of the Second Commonwealth in the area that later became
Palestine. Stop lying, Gary.
> > 2. =A0It was you Italians that drove us out.
>
> In AD 79. Before that it was the Parthians, before that it was the
> Egyptians, and before that it was the Babylonians.
In 70CE and 135CE. The last expulsion was by the Babylonians in
586BCE.
> > 3. =A0The RETURN was by LEGAL IMMIGRATION and LEGAL LAND PURCHASE.
>
> How can someone "return" to a place that they and their ancestors have
> never seen?
The above question is based on an invalid premise (i.e., an Arab lie);
ignored.
> > 4. =A0The LEGAL government authorized the creation of TWO nations in
th=
e
> > Palestine Mandate.
>
> Yeah in a *non-binding* UNGAR, and the LEGITIMATE OCCUPYING RESIDENTS
> said "Go **** yourself. Your idea sucks.".
If you study international law, you'll know that all actions taken by
international bodies are non-binding unless both parties agree or the
international body sends in an army. The FACT remains that the LEGAL
GOVERNMENT divided the Palestine Mandate between the two dominant
ethnic groups, in the same way that the legal government of India had
done a few months before, and for the same reason.
> > 5. =A0The Arabs decided not to establish their nation, choosing
instead
> > to wage a War of Genocide against the Jews.
>
> Yeah, and they were within their rights to decide thus. The local Arab
> inhabitants waged no war (of "genocide" or anything else); they were
> terrorized out of their homes by terrorist zionist thugs. Read: Irgun
> and Stern Gang.
Now you've lost it Gary. What you describe was a RESPONSE to the ARAB
Murderers and Terrorists.
It's established history that following Res 181, the Arabs immediately
began attacking Jewish communities. I guess people like you have a
problem with the victims defending themselves.
> > 6. =A0Everything that has happened to them since then is a result of
> > their failure to attain the objectives of the previous numbered item.
>
> AND the zionist desire for more turf and water as their population grew.
> In the Balkans
> they call this "ethnic cleansing". I call it state terrorism.
As I've asked every Arab who believes his own lies, and every Arab
sympathizer, where is the border between Israel and Pallieland? Even
when the 1949 armistice line is agreed to, as is the case with Gaza,
the Arabs still find excuses not to honor it.
> > When are you going to post articles consistent with THE TRUTH instead
> > of the crap disseminated by the Arab Liars Who Believe Their Own Lies?
>
> I just did, Schmoo
No you didn't Gary. You simply repeated Arab lies. It scares me that
people like you believe such lies.
|
