Gaza started shooting rockets on Israel cities again

Palestine was never, until recently, a recognized nation, country or collection of people, Jews, Israel and Judea were and have been for thousands of years. My argument is not lost or won as it is fact, pure and simple and, one which defeats every argument on this thread which you put forth.

Indeed, like the collection of squatters who never had a nation and are now being touted as the rightful land owners of the former lands of the Jews who were a nation long before those squatters parked their bums there.

Palestine was never, until recently, a recognized nation, country or collection of people, Jews, Israel and Judea were and have been for thousands of years.

This silly comment would hold water if there was ever a nation of Palestine that predates Israel and Judea but it doesn't so, it is simply another silly comment from Creation in a long line of them.

I have. Palestine was never until recently, a recognized nation, country or collection of people, Jews, Israel and Judea were and have been for thousands of years.

Now, perhaps calling me a name or insult will change the above fact so please, debate as you normally do and have at it.

 

Yes, it is in the news that the IDF is tearing down houses built on illegal tunnels or used by militants contrary to the will and orders of the occupation forces which is permitted by the rules of war. As well, if these houses are on Israeli land then they are of course, able to show permits for building them and if not, then how can it be indicative of an apartheid nation when the houses are not on Israeli land?

True story?

[video=youtube;w4SxXVMYSww]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4SxXVMYSww[/video]

 

Jews who have claim and right to their former nation do and have invited European Jews to help form the modern nation of Israel so now they do.

 

Do you know that "nice" and "good to know" is not an insult?

But if you are saying now that I cant claim connection over Lithuania, so why did you say it earlier?

I did, and still doing, but you like to ignore it.

I cant claim connection over Lithuania, because of the law, and I can claim connection over Israel because of the law.

First of all- you said that I can claim connection.
Secondly- I cant claim connection over Lithuania, because of the law, and I can claim connection over Israel because of the law.

After anyone get a green card, they have to fulfill several things that eventually would let them claim their American citizenship, so baseclly you earn your right, that the US give you, for this citizenship.

But why do Lithuanian wouldnt let Jews come to Lithuania, if you said that me and everyone else that his family been in Lithuania can claim connection over it?

I dont parse out the meaning, i just show you what you said, and the contradiction that you made.

SO the Hagganah is a movement or an army? do you know that an army is an organization and not a movement?

Yes I know what is negligible, and still when you have the slight difference between two things, its meanings of the two words automatically change and get a different meaning.

I never said that I agree with that.

But you said that Israel killed Arab ministers, so if you said it you must have evidences for it, so please post it.
Israel killed innocent people in Gaza because Hamas hides his missiles launchers, bonkers etc, inside of innocent civilians, and inside of hospitals, and schools, and kindergartens, and when Israel want to bomb there, they tell this innocent civilians to evacuate from their houses until the bombarding will over, and if they CHOOSE to stay in their houses, they (the civilians) will be responsible to the outcome.
Please answer me this:
Why you didnt say anything to the US when they've been in Afghanistan? because you say that Israel cant do things against enemy territories.

So he wallet and, let say, the money inside the wallet is the same thing? hmmm so answer me this:
does a house is the same thing like the T.V. inside the house? and if not, so also does the wallet and the money.

And if it doesnt make any difference why did you use the analogy?

A country have to be led by it prime minister/president, and the prime minister or the president must to be part of a political party, and to be voted by their people, and if you dont have this, so how can you have a country?
SO once again:
what the names of the leaders of those political parties and the names of the parties that was in THE STATE of Palestine?

First of all- Israel didnt imposed anything, if you want to imposed something, you have to do it AGAINST laws, BUT Israel did established itself according to world acceptance, so actually Israel didnt imposed nothing.

Secondly- just in this sentence you contradict yourself.
If the British imposed their rule over the Land of Israel, and you are part of this British territories, so it means that you have to be mad on yourself, because you dont like that someone impose something about someone else.

Israel didnt imposed anything, if you want to imposed something, you have to do it AGAINST laws, BUT Israel did established itself according to world acceptance, so actually Israel didnt imposed nothing.

But you said that the Palestinians (the Arabs) have THE RIGHT over Palestine, and in the UN charter written there that the rights of anyone in a land need to be fulfill, so baseclly the UN partition plan was according to the UN charter.

I did hear lectures of Norman Finkelstein, but yet you want me to "do read" what someone wrote (which I said that I did) but when someone (me) give you same thing to do, you dont want to.

But how does it make no difference if the points is according to the subject?

So why did you ask me about apples?

http://www.ibiblio.org/sullivan/docs/Knesset-speech.html

That was from his speech in the Knesset.

And still, if you say that Israel and the Jews the most important thing is lands so they shouldnt evacuated anything.

When Israel moved out from Gaza, it was in September, 2005, BUT when Israel did the detachment from Gaza it was in summer 2005, so actually Israel moved out from Gaza not because of the settlements that were in Gaza, because those settlements were evacuated before the IDF moved out from Gaza.

On September 1993, Yasser Arafat sent a massage to Rabin that he wrote there, that he recognize that Israel have the right to live in peace and with security, he accept Resolution 338 and 242, abandon terror and he obligate oneself to reach the end of the conflict in peaceful ways, that made the Israeli government change their policy, and that what led to Oslo Agreement.

Palestinians in the West Bank arent occupied, why? because the PA rule, in the Arab cities (according to Oslo Agreement), so if the Palestinians are occupied, so you must be mad on Abu-Mazen and the PA.

So I still wait for you answer:
So if you are saying now that no one can claim right to two lands, so how come you said earlier that I can claim the right to Lithuania and Israel?

Thats why the US built a fence next to Mexico?

But you said that Israel do things in Gaza (which is an enemy territory), so please answer me:
Why you didnt say anything to the US when they've been in Afghanistan?

I'm not dodging anything.

 

Patience of Job indeed Stuntman!

 

Are you sure ? The facts are opposite.
Arab bedouins are those who steal land from Israeli on a daily basis.
Atabs will not rest until all Israelis are thrown to the sea.
As a Palestinian, do you want peace with your Israeli neighbors ??

 

No its sarcasm and complete avoidance of the point, thus wasting my time.

To get you to agree that you logically cannot. Which you now do.

No you like to ignore.

Ive never mentioned the law, and Zionism pre-dates any legislation on these matters so the laws of either country have nothing to do with it. So you could not reasonable claim any land in Lithuanua even if european jews had taken over the land and established a jewish state for you there. What matters is the logical and moral position.

No the green card is a privilege granted, if you had the right to live in America you would not even need to apply. If you stuntman had family in America wuld you also say you now have the right to live in America?

There is no contradiction in that Zionism is a national movement for the jewish state to claim palestine on the basis of a claimed sacred connection of Jews in general. Just accept it.

No I said they were an army "moving in uniform in formation across Palestine to attack various villages". Do you agree I said that? Have I been unclear? Is there a contradiction you'd like to discuss or are you going to accept that?

What is the difference in meaning and why is it significant?

Ok do you then agree?

Do you agree that Ive now said that Im not going to post evidences that Israelis have killed arab ministers in Palestine?

I have been referring to Jewish terrorism in Mandate Palestine, like bus, market and hotel bombings, not to much later events, I have had reason to think we were still talking of these times. Am I wrong or have you just decided to refer to a different time?

Yes they are the same, in the sense that both the house and the TV inside are valuable, same for the wallet and the money inside. Do you agree?

Because both the wallet and the contents are valuable, do you agree?

Easily all you need are a collection of people with the same opinion.

Muhammad Izzat Darwaza - Palestine Independence
Jamal al-Husayni - Palestine Arab party
Abd al-Latif Salah - National Bloc
Should I go on or is there something else I haven’t answered here?

LOL

Firstly, you do not have to do it against laws.

Secondly, The UN general assembly had no authority to impose any such law and neither did Israel and

Thirdly, Israel imposed itself on cities and towns across Palestine that were not even offered them in the Partition Plan and it imposed its minority rule in districts like the Negev where jews were a tiny part of the population.
Why do I have to be mad on myself? Are you mad on yourself now for things you think Israel did wrong in the past? No. You now agree that I don’t need to be ‘mad on myself’.

LOL

Firstly, Palestinian arabs do not have the right to Palestine simply because they are Arabs, just as Jews in Palestine do not have the right to Palestine because they are Jews. Their rights, their natural rights derive from their humanity. Their rights are not based on religious or ethnic grounds because that of course is evil.

Secondly, you agree with me that this is evil because you know what happened when the Nazis viewed Jewish people as part of a common group that was a parasite on German people, and therefore you now agree with me.

Thirdly the 1947 UN GA proposed partition was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations? Nowhere in the UN's charter was there the power to partition any country, especially based on racial or religious grounds. Even if the UN had the power, the resolution to partition Palestine was not binding since it was indorsed by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council.

No of course not because;
Firstly, you gave me a list a names of authors writing on the ancient Jewish history in the land which is unrelated.

Secondly, your historian who you say agrees with whatever you say hasn’t even been named.

Thirdly, Norman Finkelstein speaks directly to the point of our discussion.

If it makes no difference to the point even if it is true or if it is not true then it makes no difference, that’s even if it is according to the subject. Do you understand that and agree?

Because apples are irrelevant to the subject and their colour makes no difference to the point so there would be no point in your commenting on their colour.

Exactly, looking directly and in detail at your evidence,

Firstly, there is no begging here at all whatsoever.

Secondly this speech is in 1977, the disengagement of force in the Sinai 1 agreement occurred in 1974. Again proving you wrong in saying that he begged for peace because his soldiers were surrounded. Do you understand and agree with that?

They feared then that they would be dead and being dead they cannot settle on anything.

LOL

Of course they were evacuated before the IDF moved out, its known as a rearguard action. Where are retreating force pulls out its most vulnerable assets first (the settlers) before pulling out its offensive weapons (the IDF). That’s doesn’t mean it wasn’t evacuating settlements under the pressure of continued violence in Gaza.
Obviously you understand and agree with that.

And before that was the Intifada. Israel then recognised that it could no longer take over the entire west bank, and resigned itself to parts of it. Do you agree with that?

While the PA controls some areas it is not in full control of the West Bank while Israel retains settlements on a number of areas of the west bank and controls both the airspace and the borders of the west bank and most the Gaza strip. And it controls and settles the Golan Heights. Do you deny these FACTS?

It did not build a fence inside Mexico or Canada though did it?

Because the US is acting under the auspices of the UN as part of an authorised coalition effort to support the duly elected Afghanistan government. Its very different, and you will now agree that it is very different.

 

Which they never did, as zionism was born in europe not palestine and theyve no right to anyway as european jews have no claim on palestine based on a kingdom hundreds of years ago.

If we all tried to claim land based on our ancestral living areas the result would be terrible.

 

And still those words arent an insults

So if now I can claim connection over Lithuania, why didnt whole of the Jews in Europe cant claim connection over Israel (according to you).

Thats why I answered you all of your questions and you didnt?

The law isnt metter? so why countries legislate laws?
The Jews taken over? when? the UN gave to the Jews the right to established a Jewish state in the Middle East, and the UN agreed to it, so you cant say that the Jews taken over the Land of Israel, if the Jews didnt get acceptance from the world about a Jewish state and still established it, just then you could say that the Jews taken over.

I know what is Zionism, and you used this term wrong several of comments earlier, and now you probably checked what it means so you are trying to say like you never said it.

So to but a shirt, can I give to the salesman just my wallet, and thats how I can pay for the shirt? or you need the money INSIDE of the wallet to pay for the shirt?
If you answer is that I need the money, so you will actually say that wallet and money are not the same.

Ok so you have leaders to Arab parties, BUT did any of them was the prime minister/president of Palestine, THE STATE? and if so when?

SO now Palestinians do not have the right over the Land of Israel? good to know that you agree with me.

Secondly- Jews do have the right over the Land of Israel, not because any religious right, but because of the law, international law.

I do agree with you that the Nazis showed Jews as parasites, but that is not what happen in Israel (example- minister Tibi)

The Security Council is part of the UN, so either way the UN had the power to partition any country, because the Security Council is part of the UN, and if you need the agreement of the Security Council, actually you need the agreement of the UN.

Thats why I gave you place to look for historian's articles- in UCLA, Library of Congress, Stanford, Yale etc.

Secondly- you need to know the history of this land if you ever want to talk about it.

If it according to the subject we are talking about, how does it make no difference?

So why did you ask me about apples?

First of all- I just noticed that you adited what I said, HOW? simple- the line: "hat was from his speech in the Knesset." was UNDER the link and not above it, in my comment.

Secondly- when he said that:

So yes, he did want peace.

But if the most important thing to the Jews is lands, so how can they evacuated from Sinai? if it so important to them, they would not withdrew from it.

Secondly- how would they be feared from death, if Sinai was part of Israel?

But you said that the IDF moved out from Gaza because they didnt want to continued to defend the settlers there.
So how can it be true (what you said earlier) if the IDF moved out from Gaza after the settlers were evacuated?

If I would have green card, yes, WHY? because the US gave me the opportunity to do so.

You did say it, BUT you said that the Hagganah was a movement, and if the Hagganah was an army (as you said), why didnt you write that they are an organization?

If "Palestine" and "Falestine" were with the same meaning, so the whole world and you, were mentioned "Palestine" also as "Falestine", and you would write "Falestine" too, and if you didnt and still isnt doing it so obviously it doesnt have the same meaning.

I dont agree that "Palestine" and "Falestine" are with the same meaning.

Why? you said that you have evidences that Israel killed an Arab ministers.

Do you know that the Arabs killed innocent Jews back then right? and if so, why dont you mad on the Arabs?

You just said what I said earlier, and if you agree with that, so actually you agree with fact that Israel is not occupied Arabs in the West Bank and Israel is not an Apartheid state.

This is according to an international agreement.
So you say that Israel doesnt need to protect their borders in the West Bank? so why dont you say anything when the US protecting theirs with Mexico?
Israel doesnt control Gaza anymore, Hamas is.
Do you know that in the Golan Heights you have a lot of Israeli Arabs?

Like Israel didnt build a fance inside of Arab cities or villages.

Do you know that when the UN and the world putting pressure under Israeli actions in Gaza (operations), when for example they ( the UN and the world) pressure Israel to stop Israel stop eventually.

 

Sorry but another failed contention of yours. In the above, you contend that Jews who have lived in their ancestral homeland (which was theirs, not Palestinians who came much later) were and are not permitted to rule their own land for some reason and are not permitted to allow and invite anybody they wish. In this case, they allowed other Jews to come there to help form the nation all of them eventually called Israel. And many of those who came there were Zionists but, it is not up to you to tell the peoples who are the legitimate occupants of the Levant who and who they cannot welcome with open arms to live in their land.

More of the same. Please, can we just have a normal discussion rather than having the rest of us witness your meltdown and subsequent banning.

 

Firslty, it was not only theirs, it was everyone who lived there's.

Secondly, they are permitted to rule their own land, but not at the expense of others. That means that they cant logical morally or reasonably invite people from europe just as palestinian arabs cant invite arabs from across the middle east.

Thirdly, it is not me telling anyone anything except you of course. It was they the arabs opposing the mass immigration of people intend on splitting the lands up to form their own state exactly as you and your family and friends would oppose muslims immigrating to america and setting up their own state.

Fourthly, until you cease your silly cliches and start justifying the things you contend Ill be speaking to you exactly as I like, even if Im banned for it.

 

Did I say you insulted me? Are you going to apologise?

I said you cannot claim Lithuania, you now agree with me.

No thats why I answered all your questions and you didnt.

I never said law doesnt matter, I said zionism pre-dates the laws respecting the various countries involved, including the UN.

The Jews took over most Palestine in 1947. The UN had no right to agree to anything. The arabs, the majority of humans, said no. They invaded and settled outward from the territory they had agreed to.
So indeed I can say that the Jews taken over. Do you agree?

No Ive never used the term wrongly at all in any comment Ive made.

I never said the wallet and the money are the same, you said that, I said both are valuable. Do you agree?

Yes. It was known as Mandate Palestine. Do you agree?

No you misunderstood my quote;

Palestinian arabs do have rights over the land of israel, but not because they are arabs, but because they are/ or were during the Mandate, humans who live there.

The law was never meant to apply to them as an ethnic group, in fact the law is specifically against discriminating postively or negatively on ethnic or religious grounds. So no, jews in europe do not have rights to Palestine, or Israel, under international law. Do you agree?

Treating humans as a group, using collective punishment or reward, or merely differentiating, is exactly what the Nazis did and what Israel did. You yourself, would prefer to be treated as an individual, not as a Jew.

No in fact that's not how it works.

1/ The UN did not have any sovereignty or any other right over Palestine.

2/ The General assembly under its own rules had the power only to make recommendations, therefore the Partition plan was not creating one or another state.

3/ The partition plan violated article one of its own charter. And was a fundamental violation of international law.

4/ The plan was neither just nor fair. It granted 55% to people who actually owned only 6 or 7%.

Firstly, you gave me a list a names of authors writing on the ancient Jewish history in the land which is unrelated.

Secondly, your historian who you say agrees with whatever you say hasn’t even been named.

Thirdly, Norman Finkelstein speaks directly to the point of our discussion.

Even if it is according to the subject it makes no difference to the point. Thats even if it is true or if it is not true it makes no difference. Do you understand that and agree?

I did not ask you about apples, I illustrated the point using the example of apples, which are an example of an un-related matter. Do you agree?

Was your link to his Knesset speech your evidence of his begging for peace or was it not?

Of course he wanted peace, but you lied and said he begged for peace. Ive caught you out, thats all. Do you agree or not?

Yes they would withdraw from it even if the most important thing to them is land.

They would be feared from death in the Sinai from the Egyptian army that would eventually break through. Do you agree that is what happened?

Because its the IDFs job to defend the settlers, as they are Israeli citizens, therefore they evacuated the settlers first before they evacuated themselves. Do you agree or not?

But it would not be your right, it would be a privilege granted or not granted, even if you had family there right now.

I never said they were a movement, youve both misunderstood and mis-quoted me. I said they were an army. An army "moving in uniform in formation across Palestine to attack various villages". That does not mean I said they were a movement. I did not ever say they were a movement, at all.

I do not want to be mis-quoted and misunderstood any more by you. Do you take it back that I said they were a movement?

So what is the difference? Is it just the spelling or something else?

So what is the difference in meaning? Are you going to explain?

Why are arab ministers more important to you than innocent market shoppers?

Because they didnt start the conflict, the zionists did. Arabs did not first go to Lithuania and try to set up their own nation there.

No Israel is still occupying the west bank, it just doesnt control every single bit of it. But it still occupies it. Do you agree with that?

No it is not according to an international agreement.

The US does not control Mexicos southern border, Israel controls the west banks eastern border and Gaza's airspace and sea space. Do you agree?

It built a fence inside the West Bank, on occupied territory. Would you like evidence that it is occupied territory?

Do you accept that the operation of the US and its allies in Afghanistand is very different from the operation of the IDF in Gaza?

Its obviously, legally, geographically, politically and historically very different. Can you accept that? If you cant even accept that little point, then what are you doing?

- - - Updated - - -

By the way Stuntman, our respective posts are now getting huge. In future Ill be cutting down our points of discussion to the essential disagreements we are debating ok?

 

I dont have anytthing to apologize for, I didnt insulted you.

But you said earlier that I could claim LIthuania. because of my grandfather, and now you say you didnt say it.

Really? search, in your posts, your questions I didnt answer you, ask me them and I will answer you.

The Jews couldnt taken over The Land of Israel if they ahd an international agreement, IF to the Jews didnt have that agreement and still they were did what they do, then you could claim that the Jews taken over, until that would happen, you cant say that the Jews taken over anything.

Really? let see:
Here what I said:

Here what you answered me:

So after I asked you if the wallet and the money are the same, YOU answered me that they are the same, so which means that you can give to a salesman a wallet for some shirt you want to buy, and not muney, because the money and the wallet are the same, simple.

Whoever ruled in the Land of Israel were the British, and this rule named the British Mandate, the Arabs never ruled in the Land of Israel, because if they do how could you say that the British imposed on them their rule?

Israel isnt discriminate anyone, the Arabs in Israel have the same rights that the Jews (example- minister Tibi/Zuabi, 11% to the Arab parties in the last elections etc.

So if the Jews didnt have a right over the Land of Israel why the UN offered them a state?
In the UN charter written there that any group and any religious groups need their rights to be fulfilled fully without any discrimination, so if you say that the Jews never had right over the Land of Israel, so you actually support their discrimination, which the UN oppose.

One more time:
In the West Bank, in Arab cities and villages the PA rule, not Israel, and Israel dont do a collective punishments or treat the Arabs wrongly, they punish ONLY those who need to be punished.
In Gaza Israel is no longar in contorl there, Hamas is, so everything that happen in Gaza you need to blame Hamas, not Israel.

In Article 1 written:

- The partition plan supported that sentence, why? because in that sentence say that the rights and self-determination of people need to be put under consideration, so actually the partition plan didnt violeted any international law.

- The Jews now in control more then 55% of the land, so I think (and that is even what Arab ministers think) that the partition plan was more effective to both sides.

- The UN didnt have any right over Palestine- true, BUT because of that they give the right over Palestine to the British Mandate, that would help to solved the conflict that had between Jews and Arabs (and still do).

- The General Assembly adopted the resolution that the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine dicided, so actually the General Assembly did support the partition plan, and if like you said the General Assembly have the only right to dicided about it, so that was what happened.

First of all- thats why I gave you the places to look for, and I already gave in this forum his name.

Secondly- I already heard Norman Finkelstein's lestures.

You still didnt answer my question (and then you say that I dont answer your questions):

So if the apples dont have any connection to your points, why did you ask me about them?

To your first question- yes, and you have more.
To your sexond question- but you said that he didnt want peace, and if someone begged for something, it means that actually he wants it.

That Egyptean army came into Sinai? yes they came into Sinai, but when the peace treaty been signed the Egyptean army came back to Egypt, because before the peace treaty you had casefire.

I'm taking back what I said, yes, but sure the Hagganah wasnt an army.

But you said earlier that the IDF moved out from Gaza because they didnt want to continued to defend the settlers there, and now you are saying that the IDF moved out to defend the settlers.

So even othe American citizen (non-Jewish) have the privliege to live in the US, or the right? if you have the right so also the Jewish American citizen.

The word "Palestine" is a geographical term that refering to preticuler land in the Middle East (that not Jews or Arabs can gain control over it full size).
The word "Falestine" is a fiction word that the Arabs made up and mispelding the word "Palestine" worng, which means that "Falestine" didnt and dont exist.

I never said it, BUT you said that you have evidences that Israel killed Arab ministers, so I'm just waiting for this evidences, thats all.

So now Jews have a conflict with Lithuania and not with the Arabs? which means that the Arabs started the whole conflict (because according to what you said the Jews started a conflict with Lithuania).

Israel occupying the West Bank? so answer me those questions:
1) how can Israel occupying their own citizens?
2) how can Israel occupying something if there is an international agreeement (that the Arabs agreed with it too)?

No? so you say that the PA gain control over the Arab cities and villages in the West Bank by force?

Israel is controling the border with Jorden, because simply it is within Israeli control (according to Oslo Agreement). and Israel dont control Gaza at all, Hamas is, so if you have problems with how the people in Gaza live blame it on Hamas.

Israel when they moved the IDF out from Gaza, it was with the UN and the world acceptnece (even the US accepted it), and Israel listen to the world and to the president of the USA when they say that Israel need to stop the operation, and move out, and Israel do it, so actually Israel also do things with it's ellies.

If you would not ignore them (the points that you will cut down), it will be ok.

 

Firstly, why did you tell me I said they were a movement in the first place? Did you make a mistake or was it deliberate?

Secondly, were they an organised military force?

 

It was my mistake, and after Israel was established the Jews took the Hagganah and used the organizational structure of the Hagganah, but the Hagganah never was an army, because the IDF in his begining the Israeli government founded the IDF from Palmach and IZL.

 

You completely mis-understood what I wrote so how am I meant to discuss matters with you when you make basic mistakes such as these and then keep telling me I am saying something that I am not?

Was the Hagganah just an organised military force?

 

So if you dont want to discuss, dont.

I already answered you-
after Israel was established the Jews took the Hagganah and used the organizational structure of the Hagganah, but the Hagganah never was an army, because the IDF in his begining the Israeli government founded the IDF from Palmach and IZL, and if the Hagganah is an army, so the Palmach and the OZL is also an army, and you can have more then 1 army.

 

I am concerned that you have been deliberately mistaking what I am saying over and over again, should I be concerned that you are not being straightforward with me?

So was the Hagannah an organised military force, yes or no?

Yes, you can have more than one army. The US did too.

 

I'm straightforward with you, and I dont mispelling what you wrote on purpose, people make mistakes sometimes, we are not robots

Im the US you have one army that "under his wing" you can find all the armed forces in America. The US military was founded from the Continental Army that been in the Independence war of America between 1775-1783.

 

But if you're straightforward with me then why did you tell me that I said regarding a wallet and its contents;

when I actually said;

So you're not really being straightforward with me are you? In fact you're being quite deceptive. Am I supposed to think of you as an honest person?


The US general Patton commanded both the seventh army and the third. Clearly there are numerous armies.

Did you miss this question or were you not being straightforward again? Was the Hagannah an organised military force yes or no?

 

I'm a honest person, and if I think I was wrong I say it, it simple.
If the wallet and the money is the same thing, so can you pay to salesman on a shirt you when by giving him just your wallet or you need a money to pay for it?
If you need only the money to pay for the shirt you want, so it means that the wallet and the money are not the same.

The 7th army been fought in the world war II, the 7th amry was part of the US army, like the third.
For you second sentence-
I already asnwered you about this question, my answer was and still is that the Hagganah was not an army.

 

But you quoted me as saying simply 'Yes they are the same', when I actually said

So while I said they are both the same in the sense that they are valuable, you've told me I just said they are the same. So again youve been dishonest here have'nt you or was it another mistake?

And look again youre being deceptive or making a mistake. Youre avoiding the point that the US army had several armies within it.

And you did not answer the simple question was the Hagganah an organised military force yes or no?

So is this just another mistake youre making or is it deliberate deception? What is going on with you?

 

But even you say that you said they are the same, so are you laying?
Please answer me the question I asked you:
If the wallet and the money is the same thing, so can you pay to salesman on a shirt you when by giving him just your wallet or you need a money to pay for it?
If you need only the money to pay for the shirt you want, so it means that the wallet and the money are not the same.

In any military you have airforce, sea forces etc. BUT when you have all of those forces and whole of those companyes in the military, it doesnt mean that they are all a different army.
Any force or any company in the military are under the US army's law, or under any army in the world that they belong to, it doesnt make them seperate army.

Do you read what I wrote to you?
One more time:

It is the simple truth that you are ignoring it over and over again.

 

No I said they are the same in the sense that they are valuable. Youve told me I only said they are the same. You have deliberately missed out what I said. Thats different, was that a mistake on your part?

I never said the Hagannah was a separate army, is that another lie on your part?

And the US army had numerous armies within it.

Yet I did not ask you if the Haganah was an army, I asked you it was an organised military force yes or no. You have deliberately ignored that, was that a mistake ? Are you going to say yes or no now?

 

I'm still waiting to you answer:
If the wallet and the money is the same thing, so can you pay to salesman on a shirt you when by giving him just your wallet or you need a money to pay for it?
If you need only the money to pay for the shirt you want, so it means that the wallet and the money are not the same.

I also never said that the Hagannah was a separate army.

If the US army had and still having numerous armies within it, it means that all of those companyes and forces are under the US army's law, which means that you have 1 army to the US, which contain in it numerous of companyes that will let the army "live".
If you wouldnt have those companyes and forces you wouldnt have an army not in the US and not in any other country. its simple.

And yet the name "military" is actually an "army" and the name "army" is a "military". SO no the Hagannah wasnt a military.