Russians react to Vlad's mobilization order

[moon]

The Muslim peoples of the autonomous republic of Dagestan are rioting and fighting police, because they do not want to be drafted into your and Putin's war of white Slavic Christian imperialism.

It's not my war, dumbass, it's NATO's war- and nobody in their right mind wants to be drafted into any asshole's army, anywhere. Your bugle is out of tune.

 

[moon]

Moon and Putin's war of white Slavic imperialism.

It appears that Zelensky's failures have driven you over the edge.

Don't come back.


Haw, haw.............................haw.

 

[Cypress]

It's not my war, dumbass, it's NATO's war- and nobody in their right mind wants to be drafted into any asshole's army, anywhere. Your bugle is out of tune.

Russians are Firebombing Moon's Military Recruitment Facilities

In the days since Putin’s mobilization announcement, at least 20 military or administrative buildings across the country have been targeted by Molotov cocktails or arson attacks.

Video footage shared Monday by the pro-Kremlin Telegram channel Mash showed a man later identified as Maxim Filatov blocking the entrance of an enlistment office with his car before throwing five Molotov cocktails into the building.

“Everyone protests the way they think is right,” Filatov later wrote on social media after being released from police custody.

“I express my protest against mobilization and war in the following way,” the activist added, sharing a picture of a Molotov cocktail.

Russian enlistment offices had faced a string of similar attacks in the months following the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24.

But the latest incidents have shown activists to be slightly more organized, according to Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian security at Mayak Intelligence.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022...flares-across-russia-amid-mobilization-a78906

 

[moon]

Russians are Firebombing Moon's Military Recruitment Facilities

You really have lost the plot.

 

[LV426]

NATO is the aggressor. The US itself can never hold a moral stance on the issue of invaded territories as long as it supports Zionist aggression, invasion and ethnic cleansing. You are a morality zombie.

NATO didn't invade Russia, Russia invaded Ukraine.

 

[moon]

NATO didn't invade Russia, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Israel invaded Palestine. Palestine did not invade Israel.

 

[LV426]

Israel invaded Palestine. Palestine did not invade Israel.

Well, Israel and Palestine were created at the same time, in the 1947 partition.

Ethnic cleansing happened on both sides (one of the few times I would agree on bothsides), and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was allied with the Nazis and fascists during WWII.

I do not agree that Israel has a right to the WB, Gaza, or Golan, and I think they should withdraw completely from those regions and make Jerusalem an international city with its own government separate from Israel and the Palestinian Authority, administered and managed by the UN.

But the Arab nations did invade on Yom Kippur in 1973, and the intifada in the 2000's was a massive failure and mistake since it didn't gain the Palestinians anything.

Arafat could have accepted the 2000 Peace Plan which would have led to commercial and business development of the Palestinian territories using Israeli money, but he blew that.

 

[moon]

Well, Israel and Palestine were created at the same time, in the 1947 partition.

Correct- but the Zionists ignored the delineation laid down by that Resolution and attacked the Arab division.

Ethnic cleansing happened on both sides (one of the few times I would agree on bothsides), and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was allied with the Nazis and fascists during WWII.

The Grand Mufti was not a choice of Palestinians. He was appointed by the British. The Palestinians did not take an active part in the war- they were occupied by the British

I do not agree that Israel has a right to the WB, Gaza, or Golan, and I think they should withdraw completely from those regions and make Jerusalem an international city with its own government separate from Israel and the Palestinian Authority, administered and managed by the UN.

The law is with you

But the Arab nations did invade on Yom Kippur in 1973, and the intifada in the 2000's was a massive failure and mistake since it didn't gain the Palestinians anything.

Yes, 1973 was the only war initiated by the Arabs. All the others were initiated by the Zionists. The 2000 intifada was engineered by Sharon , not the Palestinians.

Arafat could have accepted the 2000 Peace Plan which would have led to commercial and business development of the Palestinian territories using Israeli money, but he blew that.

No, Camp David was a farce. The Palestinians were not even given a map. ( This is confirmed by an Israeli attendee ) Clinton organized a stitch-up. Arafat turned down the plan to dissolve his country..

 

[LV426]

Correct- but the Zionists ignored the delineation laid down by that Resolution and attacked the Arab division.

They both attacked each other, not one or the other...remember, 6 Arab nations invaded Israel when it was founded.

The Grand Mufti was not a choice of Palestinians. He was appointed by the British. The Palestinians did not take an active part in the war- they were occupied by the British

Sure he was, he wasn't the choice of the British since he allied with the Nazis against them.

Yes, 1973 was the only war initiated by the Arabs.

No, because they initiated the Six Day War in 1967 by amassing troops on Israel's border and threatening an invasion.

They also initiated the war in 1956 over Suez.

The 2000 intifada was engineered by Sharon , not the Palestinians.

How?

Arafat was the one who launched the intifada, and his widow said it was a mistake:

Arafat’s widow: Second Intifada was a mistake
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/arafats-widow-second-intifada-was-a-mistake-654028

How could it have been Sharon when he wasn't even PM when it started (Ehud Barak was). Barak was the one who made the peace offer to Arafat that was rejected.

That peace offer would have led to commercial and business development in the territories, all at Israel's expense.

All Arafat had to do was accept the deal and end the terrorism.

Guess what he chose?

 

[LV426]

No, Camp David was a farce.

Camp David was the best deal the Palestinians will have ever been offered.

Autonomous control over their lands, Israeli $$$ invested in their economy, free travel between Gaza and the WB, recognition of a Palestinian state.

That deal will never be offered again.

 

[LV426]

The Palestinians were not even given a map. ( This is confirmed by an Israeli attendee )

That is a complete and total lie because we all saw the map Israel proposed and it gave the Palestinians land in Israel for the land the settlers occupied.

Again, that deal will never be offered again.

inton organized a stitch-up. Arafat turned down the plan to dissolve his country..

No, your pals just fuckin' blew it because they thought they could get more out of Israel by suicide bombing their busses.

So after dozens of suicide bombings, how close are the Palestinians to statehood today? Are they closer to it than they were in 1999-2000? Fuck no.

 

[moon]

They both attacked each other, not one or the other...remember, 6 Arab nations invaded Israel when it was founded.

No, that was in 1948. By then the Zionist terror-gangs, Irgun, Haganah et al had already forced Palestinians out of their villages and destroyed the,

Sure he was, he wasn't the choice of the British since he allied with the Nazis against them.[/quote ]

Yes, he was appointed by the British. He changed sides.

No, because they initiated the Six Day War in 1967 by amassing troops on Israel's border and threatening an invasion.

The Zionists initiated the war by attacking them first. Pre-emptive strikes are aggression- and illegal, of course.

They also initiated the war in 1956 over Suez.

Suez was no a zionist/Palestinian conflict.

How?

Arafat was the one who launched the intifada, and his widow said it was a mistake:

The intifada wasn't an aggression, it was a response to Sharon's aggression- as Sharon fully expected.

Arafat’s widow: Second Intifada was a mistake
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/arafats-widow-second-intifada-was-a-mistake-654028

How could it have been Sharon when he wasn't even PM when it started (Ehud Barak was). Barak was the one who made the peace offer to Arafat that was rejected.

That peace offer would have led to commercial and business development in the territories, all at Israel's expense.

All Arafat had to do was accept the deal and end the terrorism.

Guess what he chose?

Sharon's march on Jerusalem's revered holy places was intended to cause a Palestinian response. Sharon had already organized the massacre of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. They're still at it today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

 

[LV426]

No, that was in 1948. By then the Zionist terror-gangs, Irgun, Haganah et al had already forced Palestinians out of their villages and destroyed the,

Meanwhile, all across the Arab world, hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews were cleansed from places like Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, the Arabian peninsula, and Egypt.

No one has clean hands in this.

Yes, he was appointed by the British. He changed sides.

Why would he do that?

The Zionists initiated the war by attacking them first. Pre-emptive strikes are aggression- and illegal, of course.

If you threaten to hurt me before I punch you in the nuts, you would be the aggressor since you made the threat.

 

[LV426]

Suez was no a zionist/Palestinian conflict.

But it was a war in the region that the Arab states launched, and Israel participated.

The intifada wasn't an aggression, it was a response to Sharon's aggression- as Sharon fully expected.

Sharon wasn't PM until 2001, but the intifada started in September of 2000, when Ehud Barak was Prime Minister.

You don't seem to know much about this.

You seem to be making it all up as you go.

Linear time and the facts are causing you to make some serious errors.

 

[moon]

That is a complete and total lie because we all saw the map Israel proposed and it gave the Palestinians land in Israel for the land the settlers occupied.

Again, that deal will never be offered again.




No, your pals just fuckin' blew it because they thought they could get more out of Israel by suicide bombing their busses.

So after dozens of suicide bombings, how close are the Palestinians to statehood today? Are they closer to it than they were in 1999-2000? Fuck no.

OK- I'm not going to waste any more time attempting to educate a prosemitic moron. There was no map. Your ethnic-cleansing buddies once again hexed Palestine- with scurrilous American support.

Dershowitz challenges our claim that the Israelis did not offer the Palestinians a contiguous state at Camp David in July 2000. As support, he cites a statement by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and the memoirs of former US negotiator Dennis Ross. There are a number of competing accounts of what happened at Camp David, however, and many of them agree with our claim. Moreover, Barak himself acknowledges that ‘the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem . . . to the Jordan River.’ This wedge, which would bisect the West Bank, was essential to Israel’s plan to retain control of the Jordan River Valley for another six to twenty years. Finally, and contrary to Dershowitz’s claim, there was no ‘second map’ or map of a ‘final proposal at Camp David’. Indeed, it is explicitly stated in a note beside the map published in Ross’s memoirs that ‘no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David.’ Given all this, it is not surprising that Barak’s foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was a key participant at Camp David, later admitted: ‘If I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David as well.’

http://www.irmep.org/mw_letter.htm

Dershowitz is a scurrilous prosemitic liar.

 

[LV426]

Sharon's march on Jerusalem's revered holy places was intended to cause a Palestinian response

So you're saying the Palestinians couldn't help themselves but launch a 10 year intifada that gained them absolutely nothing?

That seems kinda racist...

 

[LV426]

OK- I'm not going to waste any more time attempting to educate a prosemitic moron. There was no map.

There was absolutely a map, and Arafat rejected it along with the economic aid & development Israel would pay for, along with recognizing the Palestinian state.

Are Palestinians that close today or are they further from that?

They probably should have accepted that proposal; if they had, they wouldn't be in poverty right now with no hope.

All you have to ask is; after ten years of intifada, are the Palestinians closer to statehood today than they were in 2000?

HELL NO.

 

[Damocles]

Several of the folks in the video said they would be happy to serve if they get drafted. An old man was saying he'd send his son and serve himself if he could...

The folks in the video did not universally condemn the idea.

 

[moon]

Sharon wasn't PM until 2001, but the intifada started in September of 2000, when Ehud Barak was Prime Minister.

Sharon didn't have to be pm to slaughter Palestinians, dumbass. You can fuck off now. You have absolutely nothing in your bag except prosemitic canards- all debunked.

 

[moon]

There was absolutely a map, and Arafat rejected it along with the economic aid & development Israel would pay for, along with recognizing the Palestinian state.

Are Palestinians that close today or are they further from that?

They probably should have accepted that proposal; if they had, they wouldn't be in poverty right now with no hope.

All you have to ask is; after ten years of intifada, are the Palestinians closer to statehood today than they were in 2000?

HELL NO.

There was no map .. Your willful ignorance is sickening

Dershowitz challenges our claim that the Israelis did not offer the Palestinians a contiguous state at Camp David in July 2000. As support, he cites a statement by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and the memoirs of former US negotiator Dennis Ross. There are a number of competing accounts of what happened at Camp David, however, and many of them agree with our claim. Moreover, Barak himself acknowledges that ‘the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem . . . to the Jordan River.’ This wedge, which would bisect the West Bank, was essential to Israel’s plan to retain control of the Jordan River Valley for another six to twenty years. Finally, and contrary to Dershowitz’s claim, there was no ‘second map’ or map of a ‘final proposal at Camp David’. Indeed, it is explicitly stated in a note beside the map published in Ross’s memoirs that ‘no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David.’ Given all this, it is not surprising that Barak’s foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was a key participant at Camp David, later admitted:[/b] ‘If I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David as well.’[/b]

http://www.irmep.org/mw_letter.htm