Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
markhumphrys.com
Options
Comments
-
What are "western interests"?
You're probably one of those people who believes the West doesn't have enemies, only friends we haven't met yet.Why is it everytime I mention colonialism you scream Gaza/Hamas?
It's not about colonialism. It's about Islam.
I explain this at length here:
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.html
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.html
Tell me this, why did the Arab states attack Israel in 1948? Why were they so angry at Israel being set up?0 -
Israel was repeatedly attacked by Jordan and Egypt, who openly declared that they wanted a genocide of the Jews. (Look up their words if you don't believe me.) Luckily, they failed.
When you lose an aggressive war, you should expect to lose territory (e.g. that has happened to Germany). That seems reasonable to me. Israel took Egyptian and Jordanian territory as a buffer zone against future attack. ?
What seems "reasonable" to you, however, doesn't matter a crap compared to international law, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force and the colonisation thereof.
Its a bit odd that they build civilian housing in a "buffer" don't you think?Israeli occupation .........million Jews I suppose?
Stuff and nonsense.Well how would you stop the rocket fire??
Stop colonising in the rest of the OT and come to a proper peace deal?Israel ethnically cleansed 8,000 Jews from Gaza. It destroyed their homes and communities to appease the Palestinians. That was a major gesture. And what did they get in return? Endless rocket fire and attacks. Don't you think the Palestinians should have made some gesture in return, instead of escalating the violence?
Israel did not ethnically cleanse 8,000 Jews, it removed its colonists who were there illegally in the first place. It did so because it took far too many resources to guard the colonies, and to wrongfoot arafat. Redeployed resources could then be used to secure more territory in the West Bank.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stmYou're probably one of those people who believes the West doesn't have enemies, only friends we haven't met yet.
What are "western interests"? You don't seem too keen to answer.It's not about colonialism. It's about Islam.
I explain this at length here:.
Actually thats just a rant from Daniel Pipes, if memory serves me. You might explain here, in your own words.Tell me this, why did the Arab states attack Israel in 1948? Why were they so angry at Israel being set up?:.
The usual mix of resentment of what was seen as Western imperialism and opportunistic military adventurism.
Seeing as Israel won that war and established its subsequently recognised borders, I don't really see the relevance of then to building apartments and semi-detatched housing in the West bank now, settler only roads, the two-tier "justice" system in the OT and the other ills of the occupation.0 -
So in summary, your answer to the question "Do you think Israel's slow annexation of the west bank is justified?", is (paraphrasing slightly here) "yes".humphrys wrote:Israel was repeatedly attacked by Jordan and Egypt, who openly declared that they wanted a genocide of the Jews. (Look up their words if you don't believe me.) Luckily, they failed.
When you lose an aggressive war, you should expect to lose territory (e.g. that has happened to Germany). That seems reasonable to me. Israel took Egyptian and Jordanian territory as a buffer zone against future attack.
It did not seem a bad decision for a long time, even for the Palestinians in those zones, who were not oppressed but rather saw their wealth vastly increase.
Israeli occupation made the "oppressed" Palestinians 3 times richer.
There was also a massive rise in Palestinian life expectancy from 54 to 73 under Israeli "occupation".
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.future.html#gdp
The problem was the peace process. Attempting to make peace with that lunatic terrorist Arafat led to massive increase, not decrease, in killings:
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.future.html#recent.past
And Arafat's intifada caused a total collapse in the Palestinian economy.
(See GDP graph above.)
If Israel could find its way back to where it was before the peace process, the West Bank might be ok.
What's your solution? Ethnically cleanse 1/2 million Jews I suppose?
How do you justify the ongoing settlement building, and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land? (the land that the new settlements gets based upon, and Palestinians barred from)
Do you support the complete annexation of the west bank into Israel? (that seems to be the end-goal for Israel)
My own solution: How about (I don't know, maybe this is a crazy idea), not illegally annexing land that is not theirs? Maybe it even has something to do with why the Palestinians are a little bit angry with the Israeli government?
Israels blockade doesn't just block weaponry, it blocks all industrial exports from Gaza (destroying their economy), blocks many construction materials (Gaza still hasn't fully rebuilt from the 2008 attacks), and keeps unemployment up around 35%, Israel also blocked fuel from being imported.humphrys wrote:
Well how would you stop the rocket fire?KyussBishop wrote:Do you think Israel's blockade of Gaza is justified?
Israel ethnically cleansed 8,000 Jews from Gaza. It destroyed their homes and communities to appease the Palestinians. That was a major gesture. And what did they get in return? Endless rocket fire and attacks. Don't you think the Palestinians should have made some gesture in return, instead of escalating the violence?
I mean, there are some completely arbitrary items blocked here, for the most spurious of reasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_easing_of_the_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip#Goods_blocked
This is collective punishment on all Gazans, and the only reasonable conclusion on all of those restrictions, is that its aim is to severely impair the Gazan economy, not just to restrict weapon imports.
Do you think it's justified to enact that kind of collective punishment, and deliberate crippling of their economy?0 -
What seems "reasonable" to you, however, doesn't matter a crap compared to international law, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force and the colonisation thereof.
So if you carry out a war of aggression and lose, it is wrong for your victim to seize your territory?Stop colonising in the rest of the OT and come to a proper peace deal?
So your answer is NO, the ethnic cleansing of 8,000 Jews (thousands of whom were born in Gaza) did not merit any kind of gesture in response from the Palestinians.The usual mix of resentment of what was seen as Western imperialism and opportunistic military adventurism.
How was the setting up of Israel "Western imperialism"? When Israel was set up in 1947, the area designated was a clear majority Jewish area (538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs). This Jewish majority had developed peacefully (not through warfare) over the previous 70 years.
Setting this area up as a state was reasonable because: (a) the Jews (the majority in the area) wanted it, and: (b) the state would be a free democracy, whereas the alternative was dhimmi status in some standard Arab Muslim tyranny.
Go educate yourself:
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.html#existence
The Arabs in 1947 were angry because dhimmis should not rule over the Muslim. Had it been just another Muslim group, a separate state would have been accepted without controversy. But it was intolerable to allow the dhimmis to set up a state.
That was then, and still is, the root cause of the conflict. No wonder the left can't understand it.0 -
So if you carry out a war of aggression and lose, it is wrong for your victim to seize your territory? .
Yep. It's also illegal. You do realise that these attacking forces were from dictatorships and monarchies?
And again - don't you think its odd to build vast amounts of civillian housing in a "buffer" zone?So your answer is NO, the ethnic cleansing of 8,000 Jews (thousands of whom were born in Gaza) did not merit any kind of gesture in response from the Palestinians..
It wasn't ethnic cleansing, as stated earlier. As an aside, I don't think firing rockets into Israel was justified in the circumstances.How was the setting up of Israel "Western imperialism"?
..
Thats how it was perceived hence the phrasing "what was seen as", the setting up of the state being backed by the British. I'm still not seeing the relevance of 1948 to todays expansion into Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank etc.
And again, you direct me to a rant.The Arabs in 1947 were angry because dhimmis should not rule over the Muslim. Had it been just another Muslim group, a separate state would have been accepted without controversy. But it was intolerable to allow the dhimmis to set up a state...
Wild speculation.
You still haven't explained what "western interests" are.0 -
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »So in summary, your answer to the question "Do you think Israel's slow annexation of the west bank is justified?", is (paraphrasing slightly here) "yes". ...
Do you support the complete annexation of the west bank into Israel? (that seems to be the end-goal for Israel)
Well I think that right now - with the Palestinians the way they are, i.e. hopeless and not willing to make peace - Israel should define its borders and build a wall to keep out the rest. I think it would be reasonable for it to take about 1/3 of the West Bank. Borders aren't laid down by God. Most of these borders were decided by some British officer in a tent one day anyway.
Here's a crazy idea for you: Why don't Palestinians in the West Bank stop incitement to hatred in their schools and mosques and TV? Why don't they set up a liberal parliamentary democracy, with free speech, a parliamentary opposition, a free press and regular elections, and promote peaceful co-operation with Israel? Why don't they get a slice of that booming Israeli economy? If they forgot about their sacred bloody land, and stopped following Fatah and all those other tired reactionary terrorists, they could double, triple their wealth in a very short time. Israel would love to have another democracy on its west flank. It would be boom times all round.KyussBishop wrote: »Israels blockade doesn't just block weaponry, it blocks all industrial exports from Gaza (destroying their economy), blocks many construction materials (Gaza still hasn't fully rebuilt from the 2008 attacks), and keeps unemployment up around 35%, Israel also blocked fuel from being imported.
....
Do you think it's justified to enact that kind of collective punishment, and deliberate crippling of their economy?
Well it's possible the blockade should be smarter. Is that what you are arguing for - a smarter blockade?
But here's a mad idea: The Gazans quit attacking Israel. Just forget their existence. Leave them alone. Get on with life. Build up a society based on industry and tourism, instead of a society based on hatred and terror. Israel would drop the blockade right away. (There was no blockade before this rocket fire started.) Gazans would double, triple their wealth overnight. Boom times all round. Gaza could even have a booming tourist industry (great beaches). Why don't Gazans do that?0 -
Well I think that right now - with the Palestinians the way they are, i.e. hopeless and not willing to make peace - Israel should define its borders and build a wall to keep out the rest. I think it would be reasonable for it to take about 1/3 of the West Bank. ................
...but theres virtually no violence in the West Bank and hasn't been in years.0 -
You still haven't explained what "western interests" are.
You seem fascinated by this.
Would you agree that the West has "enemies"?
Would you agree that the West has "allies"?
Would you agree that such a thing as "The West" exists?
If you could agree with the above -and I suspect you don't - then western interests would involve helping its allies and restraining its enemies.0 -
...but theres virtually no violence in the West Bank and hasn't been in years.
Yes, hurray for the Israeli wall!
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.future.html#israel.winning
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.wall.html
Many Palestinians are now realising what a terrible mistake Arafat's intifada was, and they don't want to go back there again. There is hope.0 -
You seem fascinated by this.
Would you agree that the West has "enemies"?
Would you agree that the West has "allies"?
Would you agree that such a thing as "The West" exists?
If you could agree with the above -and I suspect you don't - then western interests would involve helping its allies and restraining its enemies.
The "west" as a unit does not exist, though it would be correct to use the term to refer to a group of countries with very broadly similar economies and culture.
The above is so vague its hard to answer to. There is no USSR anymore, so the idea of some great "enemy" somewhere seems remarkably 1970's.Yes, hurray for the Israeli wall!.
So you lambast Hamas for firing rockets from Gaza after an Israeli withdrawal, but laud continuing Israeli expansion into a peaceful area...
You don't see how that could be seen as sending the wrong message? That doesn't raise any questions for you as regarding Israeli motives?
Don't you see something odd about building civillian housing in a "buffer" zone?0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh really? One third of the west bank? What exactly gives them the right to do that? (the general international consensus is that the 1967 borders are a proper starting point)humphrys wrote:Well I think that right now - with the Palestinians the way they are, i.e. hopeless and not willing to make peace - Israel should define its borders and build a wall to keep out the rest. I think it would be reasonable for it to take about 1/3 of the West Bank. Borders aren't laid down by God. Most of these borders were decided by some British officer in a tent one day anyway.
Here's a crazy idea for you: Why don't Palestinians in the West Bank stop incitement to hatred in their schools and mosques and TV? Why don't they set up a liberal parliamentary democracy, with free speech, a parliamentary opposition, a free press and regular elections, and promote peaceful co-operation with Israel? Why don't they get a slice of that booming Israeli economy? If they forgot about their sacred bloody land, and stopped following Fatah and all those other tired reactionary terrorists, they could double, triple their wealth in a very short time. Israel would love to have another democracy on its west flank. It would be boom times all round.
So, just because both countries were at war at one time or another, it gives Israel the right to annex their land (in complete violation of international law)?
Not really arguing in favour of any kind of blockade, primarily seeing where your limits lie on acknowledging Israel's actions.humphrys wrote:Well it's possible the blockade should be smarter. Is that what you are arguing for - a smarter blockade?
But here's a mad idea: The Gazans quit attacking Israel. Just forget their existence. Leave them alone. Get on with life. Build up a society based on industry and tourism, instead of a society based on hatred and terror. Israel would drop the blockade right away. (There was no blockade before this rocket fire started.) Gazans would double, triple their wealth overnight. Boom times all round. Gaza could even have a booming tourist industry (great beaches). Why don't Gazans do that?
You condemn Palestinians for their actions against Israel, but do you condemn Israel for their unjust actions in this blockade? (such as blocking of certain exports, and many other completely innocent goods? not that this is anywhere near the worst they've done...)0 -
-
KyussBishop wrote: »Not really arguing in favour of any kind of blockade, primarily seeing where your limits lie on acknowledging Israel's actions.
You condemn Palestinians for their actions against Israel, but do you condemn Israel for their unjust actions in this blockade? (such as blocking of certain exports, and many other completely innocent goods? not that this is anywhere near the worst they've done...)
Maybe the blockade could be smarter - or maybe on the other hand it represents great restraint given Gaza's constant acts of war.
But the blockade is not the main issue. The real issue is the rocket attacks. No rocket attacks, no blockade. What are the rocket attacks for? The Jews are all gone.
Can you answer my question:
Why doesn't Gaza do the following? The Gazans quit attacking Israel. Just forget their existence. Leave them alone. Get on with life. Build up a society based on industry and tourism, instead of a society based on hatred and terror. Israel would drop the blockade right away. (There was no blockade before this rocket fire started.) Gazans would double, triple their wealth overnight. Boom times all round. Gaza could even have a booming tourist industry (great beaches).
Why don't Gazans do that?0 -
Maybe the blockade could be smarter - or maybe on the other hand it represents great restraint given Gaza's constant acts of war.
But the blockade is not the main issue. The real issue is the rocket attacks. No rocket attacks, no blockade. What are the rocket attacks for? The Jews are all gone.
Can you answer my question:
Why doesn't Gaza do the following? The Gazans quit attacking Israel. Just forget their existence. Leave them alone. Get on with life. Build up a society based on industry and tourism, instead of a society based on hatred and terror. Israel would drop the blockade right away. (There was no blockade before this rocket fire started.) Gazans would double, triple their wealth overnight. Boom times all round. Gaza could even have a booming tourist industry (great beaches).
Why don't Gazans do that?
A rather fallacious and indeed simplistic question that seeks to deflect from certain key issues. And of course asking them to "Build up a society based on industry and tourism" so the Israelis drop the blockade is expecting a cart to move sans the aid of a horse.0 -
A rather fallacious and indeed simplistic question that seeks to deflect from certain key issues. And of course asking them to "Build up a society based on industry and tourism" so the Israelis drop the blockade is expecting a cart to move sans the aid of a horse.
Ridiculous. All they have to do is stop rocket attacks and the blockade will end.0 -
You've skipped over the west-bank questions: What gives Israel the right to annex parts of the west bank, when that is illegal internationally, and the 1967 borders are the internationally agreed starting point?
Why is it great restraint? It is blocking items completely unrelated to weaponry or rockets, is that not straight out wrong? (you seem to be dancing around the issue here, saying it "could be smarter", without acknowledging that it is wrong)Maybe the blockade could be smarter - or maybe on the other hand it represents great restraint given Gaza's constant acts of war.
Is it not wrong for them to deliberately block exports from Palestine, to block imports critical for maintaining their economy (which have nothing to do with weaponry)?
You seem to justify or minimize every Israeli action, and portray them as the victims here, when the death tolls on both sides, plus the economic oppression and stealing of land, heavily puts the cost on the Palestinians.
Generally, you don't acknowledge any wrongdoing by Israel.
Hamas should stop their rocket attacks, yes, as it's wrong and entirely unhelpful.Why doesn't Gaza do the following? The Gazans quit attacking Israel. Just forget their existence. Leave them alone. Get on with life. Build up a society based on industry and tourism, instead of a society based on hatred and terror. Israel would drop the blockade right away. (There was no blockade before this rocket fire started.) Gazans would double, triple their wealth overnight. Boom times all round. Gaza could even have a booming tourist industry (great beaches).
Why don't Gazans do that?
Israel's blockade on Gaza is not primarily aimed at clamping down on the rocket attacks though, as I have showed (in that they block all sorts of arbitrary non-weaponry goods), it is directed at harming Gaza's overall economy; this is collective punishment on all Gazan people, is that kind of collective punishment not inherently wrong?0 -
Who's the left though? Most of my views are pretty left-wing and I most certainly don't support reactionary right-wing islamists. I obviously don't support reactionary right-wing zionists either though. It's actually possible not to "take sides".The left's support for reactionary right-wing Islamists is the main reason I have contempt for the left.0 -
Ridiculous. All they have to do is stop rocket attacks and the blockade will end.
Theres been sanctions and blocks on Gaza in varying forms for the last 15-20 years or so. As a result I'm not convinced.
You might get back to me on the issues raised here....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79864224&postcount=710 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Israel's blockade on Gaza is not primarily aimed at clamping down on the rocket attacks though, as I have showed (in that they block all sorts of arbitrary non-weaponry goods), it is directed at harming Gaza's overall economy; this is collective punishment on all Gazan people, is that kind of collective punishment not inherently wrong?
Russia and China do collective punishment. Israel does not.
Are you familiar with the fact that Israel supplies fuel, water and electricity to Gaza - even as Palestinian terrorists try to kill the workers that are doing so.
Palestinians attack the Israeli fuel terminal that supplies Gaza with most of its fuel supply, Apr 2008, killing two employees of the Nahal Oz fuel terminal.
3 IDF soldiers killed supplying Gaza with fuel.
Palestinians fire at trucks transporting fuel to Gaza.
Hamas fire rockets at Ashkelon power plant, 2009: "Much of Gaza's electricity is generated by that plant, and yet Hamas takes great pleasure in shooting at it."
Links below:
The Palestinians loot their own infrastructure, and attack their own fuel and electricity supplies:
http://markhumphrys.com/gaza.html#economy0 -
god i thought his kind were sent to a special building with trained staff to look after them0
-
Advertisement
-
Russia and China do collective punishment. Israel does not.
..............
emmmm,,,,,,you're sure about that now?
http://www.btselem.org/punitive_demolitions/legal_basis
http://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/curfew
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/05/punishingthelebanese0 -
Okey well, with the (unsurprising) refusal to acknowledge even the most clearly laid out Israeli wrongs, I guess that hardens the pretty clear limit on credibility and possible debate.0
-
KyussBishop wrote: »Okey well, with the (unsurprising) refusal to acknowledge even the most clearly laid out Israeli wrongs, I guess that hardens the pretty clear limit on credibility and possible debate.
You never laid out clear Israeli wrongs. The blockade is a reasonable response to acts of war. Other countries would be bombing Gaza nonstop.
Let me ask you again: Why are the Gazans firing rockets at Israel? The Jews are all gone. Why won't they stop?
If you understand why the Gazans will never stop, then you will begin to understand the conflict.
I think it is very sad that western democrats do not support a fellow democracy struggling against non-democrats. You seem unable to make the most basic moral distinctions between democracies and totalitarians.0 -
You never laid (......)and totalitarians.
You might respond to issues I've raised in previous posts.
An additonal question - Does Israel allow full democratic participation for the inhabitants of the occupied territories? Has it held a plebiscite on whether or not they wish the occupation to continue, the land be annexed outright etc...0 -
Does Israel allow full democratic participation for the inhabitants of the occupied territories? Has it held a plebiscite on whether or not they wish the occupation to continue, the land be annexed outright etc...
Well Israel tried to set up a separate PA run state for them under the peace process. Look how well that worked. They were repaid with the blood-soaked intifada.
I do think Israel should define their borders, build a wall, and be done with it. But I guess then the rockets will start to fire over the wall, as Gaza clearly shows. It might be more dangerous for Israel, not less.
In reality, there is little hope for a permanent peace until the Palestinian side changes. You are focusing on the wrong actors. It is the Palestinian side that need to change its attitudes. You have given me no hope that will ever happen.0 -
This thread has long since moved out of Politics Cafe land tbh
Moving into the main forum
Cheers
DrG0 -
Egyptian Actors on Candid Camera Show Turn Violent When Told Channel Is Israeli
This is what Israel is up against.0 -
-
This is what Israel is up against.
A Memri video........
For someone complaning about people being one sided, the choice of video from a one sided source, known for falsifying translations is interesting:
From Source Watch:Issues of reliability and veracity
MEMRI is operated by a group closely associated with the Israeli intelligence organizations. Now, in an article in Haaretz, we find that the Israeli Army has sought to plant stories about "terrorism" in the press, and
"Psychological warfare officers were in touch with Israeli journalists covering the Arab world, gave them translated articles from Arab papers (which were planted by the [Israel Defense Forces] IDF) and pressed the Israeli reporters to publish the same news here." --Amos Harel, IDF reviving psychological warfare unit, Haaretz, January 25, 2005.
This should raise a question or two about the reliability and veracity of the stories peddled by MEMRI.
This is what Prof. Juan Cole had to say about this:
"So is MEMRI, which translates articles from the Arabic press into English for thousands of US subscribers, in any way involved in all this? Its director formerly served in… Israeli military intelligence. How much of what we "know" from "Arab sources" about "Hizbullah terrorism" was simply made up by this fantasy factory in Tel Aviv?
As someone who reads the Arabic press quite a lot, this sort of revelation is extremely disturbing.
I also saw an allegation that British military intelligence had planted stories in the US press about Saddam's Iraq.
You begin to wonder how much of what you think you know is just propaganda manufactured by some bored colonel. No wonder post-Baath Iraq looks nothing like what we were led to to expect by the press, including the Arab press!" [6]
Another assessment:
If you rely on MEMRI for your knowledge of Arab discourse, you are really not informed. Arab public opinion, based on MEMRI's releases, is reduced or caricatured to either Bin Laden fans or Bush fans, while Arab public opinion is mosty a fan of neither people. --As'ad AbuKhalil[7]
Although widely used in the mainstream media as a source of information on the Arab world, it is as trustworthy as Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer was on the Jewish world. --Norman Finkelstein [8]
andWafa Sultan
Los Angeles based Syrian/American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan appeared on an al-Jazeera television show opposite Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly, a lecturer at Cairo's Al-Azhar University. Memri offered a heavily edited version of the show, and mistranslated several of the exchanges, making it appear that al-Khouly had issued a death fatwa against Sultan. Wafa Sultan became known as someone who had her life threatened because of her "Clash of Civilizations" point of view.
It turns out that Sultan had appeared on a daytime al Jazeera show, roughly equivalent to Jerry Springer, that Western Educated Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly had not issued a fatwa, and as he is not a recognized Mufti, had he issued a fatwa, it would not be considered in any way, authoritarian.
A secularist blog covering topics broadly related to MENA, named Aqoul, took a tape of the whole show, and translated it, making it available in a PDF file: Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction (26/02/2006). Posts on Aqoul, as well as one on the Winds of Change blog offer a great deal of insight into the distortions:
Just some examples of the crap produced by that organisation and examples of there own readily evident bias.
I am still amazed that one who would wish to be taken serious would post video's from such an organisation, that has had its credibility so publically shredded.0 -
Advertisement
-
A Memri video........
For someone complaning about people being one sided, the choice of video from a one sided source, known for falsifying translations is interesting:
...
Just some examples of the crap produced by that organisation and examples of there own readily evident bias.
I am still amazed that one who would wish to be taken serious would post video's from such an organisation, that has had its credibility so publically shredded.
Did you actually read those links? Consider this, that I found through your link:
WAFA SULTAN: A TALE OF TWO TRANSCRIPTS
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008359.html
The transcripts look pretty identical to me.
I love Wafa Sultan's reference to the meteorite:
"Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me..."
But shock horror, you have informed me that the correct translation is:
"My brother, believe, if you wish, in a stone but do not dare strike me with it..."
Do you have any better examples of alleged false translations of videos?
How about the Egyptians? All actors in the MEMRI studio I guess?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement