Wall a huge failure

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Tony
And what’s with this “islamophobe” crap? I thought fundamentalism was only the arena of a minority of muslims. You’re saying that speaking out against fundamentalism equates to “islamophobia”. I guess such double speak is to be expected from the devoutly religious. I'll just chalk it up to that.

Let me quote you some of your own claims

'The isrealis are dealing with muslims. Genocide and persecution of minorities (especially jews) are holy pursuits in islam. They are bound by their love of allah to kill, and oppress the infidel.'

'But it is my duty as a human to oppose and condemn hateful ideologies and religions, so I'll keep opposing and speaking against Islam and Nazism (your two favorite ideals).''

Generally speaking, decent people, when they want to refer to something actually mention it. If you were in reality talking about fundamentalism, as opposed to the Islamic religion or Muslims in general, then why not simply mention it in those quotes? You chose not to.

Your claim that 'You’re saying that speaking out against fundamentalism equates to “islamophobia”. ' is also false Nowhere did I talk about people speaking out about fundamentalism, which you would know if you had any concern for accuracy.

If you also mean to claim that I am devoutly religious you are wrong yet again but accuracy doesn't seem to be much of a concern for you, as evidenced by your own claims.

 

[Tony]

I notice that you have failed to support your claim with evidence. Perhaps you would care to do so at some point?

What claim?

Ah - the whiff of a Tony post. Ad hominems as a substitute for reason.

IMHO the following quotes from you demonstrates Islamophobia: -

'The isrealis are dealing with muslims. Genocide and persecution of minorities (especially jews) are holy pursuits in islam. They are bound by their love of allah to kill, and oppress the infidel.'

'But you ignore the fact that "extremism" is the status quo in islam.'

'But it is my duty as a human to oppose and condemn hateful ideologies and religions, so I'll keep opposing and speaking against Islam and Nazism (your two favorite ideals).'

You just attacked me for using an ad hom, then go on to use one yourself (and a non sequitur). Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy.

 

[Tony]

Generally speaking, decent people, when they want to refer to something actually mention it. If you were in reality talking about fundamentalism, as opposed to the Islamic religion or Muslims in general, then why not simply mention it in those quotes?

Because the muslims I was talking about are fundamentalists. It's clear from the context in which I was speaking.

You chose not to.

You chose, as is your typical style, to make knee-jerk assumptions and unfounded non sequiturs.

Your claim that 'You’re saying that speaking out against fundamentalism equates to “islamophobia”. ' is also false Nowhere did I talk about people speaking out about fundamentalism, which you would know if you had any concern for accuracy.

I didn't say you talked about it. But that is the implication of your assertion of so-called "islamophobia".

If you also mean to claim that I am devoutly religious you are wrong yet again but accuracy doesn't seem to be much of a concern for you

Oh really? Then why do you choose to apologize for the atrocities of islam? If a person were doing the same in regards to Nazis or the KKK, it would be safe to say that person is in one of those camps.

 

[Mycroft]

Look, Mycroft, you know exactly what I mean. I know what I mean, everyone else knows what I mean. I can't make you admit you understand, any more than I can make you see what torture is. It is just you being deliberately petulant and difficult.

The problem is I know exactly what you mean.

You keep telling me that under certain circumstances it's normal and expected to kill immigrants. The problem is you have a hard time telling me exactly what these circumstances are without comming out and saying something really ugly. You don't think of yourself as a bad person who thinks ugly thoughts, so when you realize you can't say what you want without sounding really ugly, you think it's a problem with articulation and not a problem with what you're thinking.

 

[a_unique_person]

The problem is I know exactly what you mean.

Yep, you know that I know that you know that I know that you know.

 

[Jim Bowen]

I've been away for a few days - have Mycroft, ZN and Tony yet realised that attempting to steal a country is not the best way to promote peace and harmony?

Jim Bowen

 

[zenith-nadir]

I've been away for a few days - have Mycroft, ZN and Tony yet realised that attempting to steal a country is not the best way to promote peace and harmony? Jim Bowen

Well in order to "steal" something it had to have existed first. Tell me Jim, when was the country of Palestine founded in order to show the date it was stolen?

This is what the entire issue is about. The Palestinians could have had a state in 1948, 1994-96 and 2000 instead they chose islamic fundamentalism, suicide bombing and terrorism. To the point that no one is negotiating with them now and the Israelis are withdrawing from Gaza unilaterally. Ironically Gaza was never a Palestinian country either, it has always been Egyptian land.

RFK was killed by a Palestinian, U.S. Ambassador Cleo A Noel was killed by Palestinians, George C. Moore, a U.S. diplomat was killed by Palestinians, Harold Rosenthal an aide to a U.S. Senator was killed by Palestinians, many Americans have been killed by Palestinians. I guess their deaths by terrorism are justified because Israel "stole Palestine" and uses "American-made weapons"....

 

[a_unique_person]

Well in order to "steal" something it had to have existed first. Tell me Jim, when was the country of Palestine founded in order to show the date it was stolen?

Tell me, did Israel exist?

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft asked:

Assuming the land is legally purchased, in what way does building a housing development intrinsically harm the Palestinian-Arabs?

Mycroft, I believe this question goes to the heart of your understanding of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

I believe that your view is that over a period of many years beginning with the earliest days of the zionist movement land was purchased in Israel. Eventually the land which was purchased in a legal and binding way amounted to a substantial portion of Israel. When the land was purchased it was designated for the exclusive use of Jews, particularly Jews who would in the future immigrate to Israel. Obviously land that was purchased for the sole use of Jews that had non-Jewish inhabitants needed to have its current inhabitants evicted. When this led to resentment and violence you believe that it was completely unjustified because the land had been purchased legally.

Further you believe that resistance to the state of Israel by the Arabs was completely unjustified because the Zionists had bought the land they were on fair and square and if hundreds of thousands of local inhabitants were expelled from land which had not already been purchased by the Zionists this was sad but ok because it was reasonable to assume that they were aligned with the people who were resisting the formation of the state of Israel.

Is this a fair assesment of your view?

A quote from Wikipedia that may be relevant to the above:

The partition plan was non-binding and was rejected by the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states because they felt it was unfair that the Zionists should receive half of Palestine when they owned less than 6% of land and constituted only one third of the population. The official Zionist leadership accepted the plan, but some notable Zionists, such as Irgun leader Menachem Begin, rejected it.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Tell me, did Israel exist?

Gotta give it to you a_u_p you should be a boxer with all that dodging, weaving and ducking you do.

Let me ask you a question, who built Jerusalem?....Naaa...that's too easy...here's a better one...In 301 B.C., Ptolemy I took direct control of what?...Mars?...Starbucks?...Australia?...IBM?...

How about this one?...Antiochus IV did what in 167 B.C.? Cut a new hip hop album?...modeled for the Gap?...wrote a poetry book with Jewel?

Did Israel exist indeed...

 

[a_unique_person]

Gotta give it to you a_u_p you should be a boxer with all that dodging, weaving and ducking you do.

Let me ask you a question, who built Jerusalem?....Naaa...that's too easy...here's a better one...In 301 B.C., Ptolemy I took direct control of what?...Mars?...Starbucks?...Australia?...IBM?...

How about this one?...Antiochus IV did what in 167 B.C.? Cut a new hip hop album?...modeled for the Gap?...wrote a poetry book with Jewel?

Did Israel exist indeed...

You asked, did Palestine exist? I'm asking, did Israel exist?

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, I believe this question goes to the heart of your understanding of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Dave,

When I posed that question, the topic was Israeli settlements in the disputed territories from '67 to modern times. How come all your subsequent commentary is all about pre-independence Zionism?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss that other topic, but I wonder why you feel it's necessary to shift time frames?

 

[zenith-nadir]

You asked, did Palestine exist? I'm asking, did Israel exist?

Duck...weave...dodge...parry...I'm a_u_p and I move like a butterfly and sting like a bee.......oh...I get it now...if you admit the Romans exsisted then you'll have to admit the Israelite nation exsisted...

 

[a_unique_person]

Duck...weave...dodge...parry...I'm a_u_p and I move like a butterfly and sting like a bee.......oh...I get it now...if you admit the Romans exsisted then you'll have to admit the Israelite nation exsisted...

Isreal did exist, 2000 years ago. We are talking contemporary times, with new people living there. The people who lived there certainly existed. Did Israel exist?

 

[Jim Bowen]

Some bizarre posts, ZN. The Palestinian people have lived in Palestine for centuries, hence to turf them off their land and to then call it Israel and to deny that they had a country is disingenious. Whether they had a flag or the trappings of a nation state is a very moot point. It is simply a blatant attempt at rationalising theft.

Jim Bowen

 

[Atlas]

Some bizarre posts, ZN. The Palestinian people have lived in Palestine for centuries, hence to turf them off their land and to then call it Israel and to deny that they had a country is disingenious. Whether they had a flag or the trappings of a nation state is a very moot point. It is simply a blatant attempt at rationalising theft.

You know even if you do call it theft at some point you'll have to stop or somehow rationalize it won't you? They're not going anyplace.

At least part of the problem with the Palestinian people not having a stateis that they would not bargain in good faith for it. The longer they refuse the more they lose. The wall is going up and shrinking their opportunities again.

If this is the end of Arafat it may be possible to create a future. I am not overly confident though. But Arafat had the pursestrings, if someone takes over that is less inclined toward granting cash to kill Israelis and more inclined to spend cash to suppress terrorism the dialogue for nationhood can be renewed.

How do you see it Jim.

 

[Jim Bowen]

It swings both ways Atlas - perhaps the Israelis will be willing to spend less money on killing or disinheriting Palestinians?

Jim Bowen

 

[Atlas]

I absolutely agree. And I predict that the Israelis will in fact take no aggressive actions except to move ahead on the Gaza pullout.

I think the building of the wall slows way down too.

That is, Arafat's passing sets the stage for a monumental shift. I predict that the Israelis will try to be open to it. My bias though is that there are more forces arrayed against peace on the Palestinian side. That is, they will be the ones to step up the aggression.

If I'm wrong however, a new day dawns.

What are your predictions on the violence levels if Arafat dies soon?

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft,
OK, fair enough.

Then let me ask you this.

You seem to think that land that is not currently occupied by Palestinians should be open to whoever wants to migrate there and build a settlement. Do I understand you on this?

Then do you also believe that Palestinians should just be able to move into Israel and start building settlements on any piece of land that isn't occupied currently?

Or is your point that even if the Israeli government wouldn't allow non-Israelis to just move in and start setting up settlements a Palestinian government doesn't exist therefore there's no authority to forbid the setting up of settlements by foreigners so even if popular opinion amongst the Palestinians opposed foreign settlements it doesn't matter. No government, no restriction on foreign settlements, no moral issues with Israel setting up settlements in Palestinian territory?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Isreal did exist, 2000 years ago. We are talking contemporary times, with new people living there. The people who lived there certainly existed. Did Israel exist?

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Some bizarre posts, ZN. It is simply a blatant attempt at rationalising theft.....perhaps the Israelis will be willing to spend less money on killing or disinheriting Palestinians?

Jim Bowen

I don't care what you guys say, I've been to Israel, my family lives in Israel. All you know is what you gleen from your slightly biased internet sites sitting on your butts 10,000 miles away. If I went on a message board acting like a know it all on Polish society and Polish security and Polish foreign policy and yet had never stepped foot in Poland or spoke Polish you, as skeptics would run me off with pitchforks.

This entire nightmare is because six decades ago a very small group of dictators and theocratic Islamic monarchs defied UN Resolution 181 and the 33 nations who voted for it. They didn't even try to negotiate, they chose war instead. Sixty years later millions have paid the price for that xenophobic decision. Now their grandchildren send their children strapped with explosives to die for the cause. And you two make Israel seem like home of the anti-christ.

I think what I find really ironic about you two is not what you do say regarding the middle east conflict at JREF, but what you never say regarding the middle east conflict ...