Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:58 pm**

That said, I love "theyeshivaworld.com"'s ads ... it appears they have a very broad, diverse, well-adjusted, intelligent, normal audience for their little blog ... definitely not a bunch of religious whackos ...

Posted: **Fri Oct 24, 2014 9:09 pm**

And Jackie Chan said, "Let there be a crystal ball", and there was a crystal ball. And Jackie Chan saw that the crystal ball was waterlogged, and Jackie Chan separated the crystal ball from the fern.

Posted: **Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:22 am**

saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:Ah yes, another Saxi out of context quote ... let's use a better source ...

Your belief is that "theyeshivaworld.com" is a better source than Israel's oldest newspaper, Haaretz?

No way, it was the only source that had the complete context quote. I said CONTEXT not BIAS.

There is an out of context notion to both of your quotes.

You left an unmentioned assumption that not being decent would imply they were killing other people (such as the Palestinians.)

Instead they are just yelling at everyone they disagree with to the point of the occasional brawl.

Incidentally, violence in soccer stadiums is a world wide problem. One more reason to outlaw the entire sport. :twisted:

Posted: **Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:10 pm**

tzor wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:Ah yes, another Saxi out of context quote ... let's use a better source ...

Your belief is that "theyeshivaworld.com" is a better source than Israel's oldest newspaper, Haaretz?

No way, it was the only source that had the complete context quote. I said CONTEXT not BIAS.

Your belief is that the fly-by-night religious lunatic blog "theyeshivaworld.com" is a paragon of unbiased journalism, while Israel's oldest newspaper - Haaretz - is a pro-Palestinian mouthpiece? Once again ...

Haaretz wrote:Reuven Rivlin is lucky he’s a politician in Israel. Were he a politician in the United States, he’d be labeled an anti-Semite and likely forced from his job.

Have you ever stolen U.S. military secrets for Israel? You seem like a radicalized domestic security threat with questionable loyalties.

Posted: **Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:42 pm**

nah sweden recognize palestine as a coutnry we will launch our mighty army to its defence.... 8-)

Posted: **Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:42 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:Ah yes, another Saxi out of context quote ... let's use a better source ...

Your belief is that "theyeshivaworld.com" is a better source than Israel's oldest newspaper, Haaretz?

No way, it was the only source that had the complete context quote. I said CONTEXT not BIAS.

Your belief is that the fly-by-night religious lunatic blog "theyeshivaworld.com" is a paragon of unbiased journalism, while Israel's oldest newspaper - Haaretz - is a pro-Palestinian mouthpiece?

No, he believed that the blog had the full quote, whereas Haaretz did not. Stop being an idiot please.

Posted: **Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:56 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:Ah yes, another Saxi out of context quote ... let's use a better source ...

Your belief is that "theyeshivaworld.com" is a better source than Israel's oldest newspaper, Haaretz?

No way, it was the only source that had the complete context quote. I said CONTEXT not BIAS.

Your belief is that the fly-by-night religious lunatic blog "theyeshivaworld.com" is a paragon of unbiased journalism, while Israel's oldest newspaper - Haaretz - is a pro-Palestinian mouthpiece?

No, he believed that the blog had the full quote, whereas Haaretz did not. Stop being an idiot please.

Mets racing to the defense of a Bible Prophecy blog? The sequel is never as good as the original.

Posted: **Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:03 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tzor wrote:Ah yes, another Saxi out of context quote ... let's use a better source ...

Your belief is that "theyeshivaworld.com" is a better source than Israel's oldest newspaper, Haaretz?

No way, it was the only source that had the complete context quote. I said CONTEXT not BIAS.

Your belief is that the fly-by-night religious lunatic blog "theyeshivaworld.com" is a paragon of unbiased journalism, while Israel's oldest newspaper - Haaretz - is a pro-Palestinian mouthpiece?

No, he believed that the blog had the full quote, whereas Haaretz did not. Stop being an idiot please.

Mets racing to the defense of a Bible Prophecy blog? The sequel is never as good as the original.

saxi completely missing the point of someone's post so that he can have another excuse to criticize Israel? Always as boring as the original.

Posted: **Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:23 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:That said, I love "theyeshivaworld.com"'s ads ... it appears they have a very broad, diverse, well-adjusted, intelligent, normal audience for their little blog ... definitely not a bunch of religious whackos ...

These must be targeted ads to saxis computer based on his previously searched history.

Posted: **Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:32 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:Your belief is that the fly-by-night religious lunatic blog "theyeshivaworld.com" is a paragon of unbiased journalism, while Israel's oldest newspaper - Haaretz - is a pro-Palestinian mouthpiece? Once again ...

No, I believe your are a racist, antisemitic, pro-genocidal, (insert your favorite insulting noun here). I also believe you can't understand anything unless it is written on a dead, old tuna and slapped across your face.

I said CONTEXT
CONTEXT
CONTEXT

You are saying source
source
source

Posted: **Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:43 pm**

tzor wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Your belief is that the fly-by-night religious lunatic blog "theyeshivaworld.com" is a paragon of unbiased journalism, while Israel's oldest newspaper - Haaretz - is a pro-Palestinian mouthpiece? Once again ...

No, I believe your are a racist, antisemitic, pro-genocidal, (insert your favorite insulting noun here). I also believe you can't understand anything unless it is written on a dead, old tuna and slapped across your face.

I said CONTEXT
CONTEXT
CONTEXT

You are saying source
source
source

Yeah, but in your "context context context!" rant you left some things out. Why did you do that? He said the above, and then immediately said-

Reuven Rivlin wrote: I’m not asking if they’ve forgotten how to be Jews, but if they’ve forgotten how to be decent human beings. Have they forgotten how to converse?

So put that in context, the President of Israel asking if Israeli's have forgotten how to be decent human beings and talk to people instead of bombing the shit out of them and threatening them constantly along with the never ending fear mongering.

So, you wanna put that into context? Saxi is saying that if any non Jew had said that they'd be accused of being an anti semite. Not to mention Rivlin is openly questioning Israeli society's hatred of the Palestinians. That's a "no-no" for those who blindly support Israel no matter what. Anyone who openly asks "hey, wait a minute, Israel's response in <insert current Palestinian collective punishment campaign> seems a bit overly harsh don't ya think?" is immediately attacked as a Jew hater and an anti semite.

Posted: **Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:40 pm**

tzor wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Your belief is that the fly-by-night religious lunatic blog "theyeshivaworld.com" is a paragon of unbiased journalism, while Israel's oldest newspaper - Haaretz - is a pro-Palestinian mouthpiece? Once again ...

No, I believe your are a racist, antisemitic, pro-genocidal, (insert your favorite insulting noun here). I also believe you can't understand anything unless it is written on a dead, old tuna and slapped across your face.

I said CONTEXT
CONTEXT
CONTEXT

You are saying source
source
source

tzor wrote: let's use a better source

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=206788&start=950#p4574525

Posted: **Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:41 pm**

Lord Arioch wrote:nah sweden recognize palestine as a coutnry

Which, itself, is nothing short of amazing with that warmongering lunatic Carl Bildt running the show.

Posted: **Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:54 pm**

Lord Arioch wrote:nah sweden recognize palestine as a coutnry

Which, itself, is nothing short of amazing with that warmongering lunatic Carl Bildt running the show in Stockholm.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:20 pm**

By a vote of 174-6, the United Nations has demanded Israel immediately surrender its nuclear weapons and turn all its nuclear facilities to the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Voting against the resolution was Israel, the U.S. (controlled by Israel), Canada (controlled by the U.S.), the Federated States of Micronesia (population 106,000), the Marshall Islands (population 68,000), and Palau (population 18,000).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/d ... inspectors

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:12 pm**

Thats two years old. Israel doesn't have nukes.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:54 pm**

shickingbrits wrote:Thats two years old.

Oops, sorry, wrong link - this one was today's vote ...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/un-approve ... nce-nukes/

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:12 pm**

Which countries abstained?

174 sounds impressive, but if 90% of them are as important as Albania, then big deal.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:27 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:By a vote of 174-6, the United Nations has demanded Israel immediately surrender its nuclear weapons and turn all its nuclear facilities to the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Voting against the resolution was Israel, the U.S. (controlled by Israel), Canada (controlled by the U.S.), the Federated States of Micronesia (population 106,000), the Marshall Islands (population 68,000), and Palau (population 18,000).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/d ... inspectors

those last 3, why would they support Israel keeping nukes? Weren't they all testing grounds? Are they hoping Israel will pay them to test on their soil again?

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:32 pm**

notyou2 wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:By a vote of 174-6, the United Nations has demanded Israel immediately surrender its nuclear weapons and turn all its nuclear facilities to the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Voting against the resolution was Israel, the U.S. (controlled by Israel), Canada (controlled by the U.S.), the Federated States of Micronesia (population 106,000), the Marshall Islands (population 68,000), and Palau (population 18,000).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/d ... inspectors

those last 3, why would they support Israel keeping nukes? Weren't they all testing grounds? Are they hoping Israel will pay them to test on their soil again?

Canada was a testi.. Uh, no?

Edit:just spotted "last three". I'll go now to think about how the UN created the state and now feels shame.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:58 pm**

Saxi your numbers are wrong.

Saxitoxinsource wrote:The resolution, adopted in a 161-5 vote, noted that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It called on Israel to “accede to that treaty without further delay, not to develop, produce test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons” and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

The United States and Canada were among four countries that joined Israel in opposing the measure, while 18 countries abstained.

Read more: UN approves Arab-backed call for Israel to renounce nukes | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/un-approve ... z3KneRfgjj
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Fixing Quote.

Also I don't see Iran doing anything similar on terms of opening up their Nuclear plants to the inspectors.
Now its just speculation on my part but I doubt Iran isn't going for nuclear weapons.

Also that last sentence: "put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard*insert chuckle* of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. Now don't get me wrong I don't like goverment in general b/c of the corrupt crap that we all know goes on there. But this is putting the cart before the horse. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel hasn't used any nuclear weapons on anyone yet. As such they haven't done anything wrong (or if they already have the weapons then why should they hand them over?) Also this is invasive of the sovereignty of Israel which is among the basic principles of any government system in recognizing other countries.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:14 am**

notyou2 wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:By a vote of 174-6, the United Nations has demanded Israel immediately surrender its nuclear weapons and turn all its nuclear facilities to the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Voting against the resolution was Israel, the U.S. (controlled by Israel), Canada (controlled by the U.S.), the Federated States of Micronesia (population 106,000), the Marshall Islands (population 68,000), and Palau (population 18,000).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/d ... inspectors

those last 3, why would they support Israel keeping nukes? Weren't they all testing grounds? Are they hoping Israel will pay them to test on their soil again?

The Pacific island nation of Palau is the largest recipient of aid per capita from the United States. It has received more than $852m dollars in US financial assistance over the last 15 years.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-paci ... 27704.html

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:44 am**

Well, it would make the nuclear talks with Iran a lot easier.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:11 am**

I guess the real question is: how can Israel give up nukes if they never formally admitted that they have nukes? That's sort of like a UN resolution saying Russia should leave Luhansk.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:09 pm**

The journalism world is up in arms today that Chris Hughes the Facebook mogul who bought The New Republic magazine had the temerity to fire editor Franklin Foer and literary editor Leon Wieseltier, beheadings that have led to the resignation of twenty-some editors and writers at the magazine.

I’m not shedding any tears. So Leon Wieseltier is going to have to cut his hair and go out and suck up like the rest of us. He was a proponent of a feverish ideology, rightwing Zionism. He appeared on the main stage at AIPAC, the Israelis gave him a $1 million prize a year ago. The New Republic has for forty years been a bastion of the Israel lobby.

Having watched as a college student when Marty Peretz took over the New Republic 40 years ago and some other group of writers was up in arms, this shift strikes me as generational. This is a landmark in the era of the Jewish establishment. It’s petering out in an elite generation of far greater diversity.

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/curtain-n ... 7Jtkg.dpuf

He ends his 30 years in his lair at the New Republic in disgrace and will be totally forgotten, wiped out of the history books.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church has called for a boycott of Israel and, it seems, Chris Hughes is a Lutheran. It's leaping to conclusions that the church's position had anything to do with Hughes' decision, but it certainly didn't hurt.

Conquer Club

Israel Plans to Restore Death Penalty for Everyone but Jews

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

Re: President: "Israel is a sick society"

UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Disarm

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Surrender its N

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Surrender its N

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Surrender its N

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Disarm

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Disarm

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Surrender its N

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Disarm

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Surrender its N

Re: UN Votes 174-6 for Israel to Immediately Surrender its N

Zionist Editors out at New Republic