From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: ISLAM BORDERS vs Israeli borders
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 46

hasan@McRCIM.McGill.EDU  writes:


>In article <1993Apr5.202800.27705@wam.umd.edu>, spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
>|> In article <C50wJJ.J4r@newsflash.concordia.ca> ilyess@ECE.Concordia.CA  
>|> (Ilyess Bdira) writes:
>|> > > 1)why do jews who don't even believe in God (as is the case with many
>|> > of the founders of secular zionism) have a right in Palestine more
>|> > than the inhabitants of Palestine, just because God gave you the land?
>|> G-d has nothing to do with it. Some of the land was in fact given to the  
>|> Jews by the United Nations, quite a bit of it was purchased from Arab  
>|> absentee landlords. Present claims are based on prior ownership (purchase  
>|> from aforementioned absentee landlords) award by the United Nations in the  
>|> partition of the Palestine mandate territory, and as the result of  
>|> defensive wars fought against the Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, et al.
>|> 
>|> ***
>|> > 2)Why do most of them speak of the west bank as theirs while most of
>|> > the inhabitants are not Jews and do not want to be part of Israel?
>|> First, I should point out that many Jews do not in fact agree with the  
>|> idea that the West Bank is theirs. Since,  however, I agree with those who  
>|> claim the West Bank, I think I can answer your question thusly: the West  
>|> bank was what is called the spoils of war. Hussein ordered the Arab Legion  

>			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is very funny.
>Anyway, suppose that in fact israel didnot ATTACK jordan till jordan attacked
>israel. Now, how do you explain the attack on Syria in 1967, Syria didnot
>enter the war with israel till the 4th day .

Syria had been bombing Israeli settlements from the Golan and sending
terrorist squads into Israel for years.  Do you need me to provide specifics?
I can.

Why don't you give it up, Hasan?  I'm really starting to get tired of your 
empty lies.  You can defend your position and ideology with documented facts
and arguments rather than the crap you regularly post.  Take an example from
someone like Brendan McKay, with whom I don't agree, but who uses logic and
documentation to argue his position.  Why must you insist on constantly spouting
baseless lies?  You may piss some people off, but that's about it.  You won't
prove anything or add anything worthy to a discussion.  Your arguments just 
prove what a poor debater you are and how weak your case really is.

All my love,
Ed.

