Lets Deal With Documented Facts For A Change

[sealadaigh]

no, you didn't see me raise my hand.

you saw me make a facetious comment about what i would call your lack of intelligence or tour bigotry, and perhaps they go hand in hand, about your willingness to tar all muslims with the nidal hasen brush.

you also saw me act like an american who had taken an oath to support and defend the constitution. that oath had no expiration date, and while there are certain differences within the UCMJ, the concept that a man is innocent until proven guilty holds. i am content to let the court martial determine his guilt.

Before you are so quick to make judgement of my intelligence you should go back and see what I said. I try very hard to be politically correct as it is something that fine upstanding people such as yourself watch for so closely.

Don't sweat Seal or Codger and their remarks. When they are bested, the profanity and threats are just their way of whimpering and crying.

lolol...this coming from a guy whose main squeeze is roudy. skit rarely used profanity, nor do i. hank doesn't either.

i find it odd that you are constantly trying to link me with skit. he and i were bitter enemies. it was the zionist who prostrated themselves at his feet and licked the dust off his boots and then shined them with their tears.

i just have no further intention with this perceived monster that you and your buddies have created.

crack me up, you criticising anyones profanity...too funny...

hey, don't you care about all the people swearing in nigeria. i have never seen you condemn people swearing in nigeria.

you are a funny guy, hoss.

 

[rosends]

two hundred years or more, for one thing.

other, non-western, cultures have different ideas of property, land ownership, and borders for another.

you are aware, i hope, that during the settlement of those aforementioned areas, slavery and indentured servitude was "in vogue". shall we wind the cclock back on that too.

I'm wondering how you came up with "200" years. It seems rather arbitrary. Is there something about the 200th year which then precludes others' settling which was absent in year 199? How long had there been native Americans on the north American continent before European settlers settled in? What about Aborigines in Australia?

Since you bring up that these are Western cultures and that non-Western cultures have different ideas, which idea should be applied to the mid East? Are there distinctions between the Turkish standard, the European one and the Egyptian one? What about the Greek or Roman one?

If you are against rewinding the clock then are you saying that you want to start from zero right now and accept facts on the ground as they are, or do you simply want to rewind to a particular spot and no further?

it is arbitrary. i was trying to get as close to 1948 and still consider your scenario about america and australia.

personally, i would say the difference between the colinisations you mention and israel was 1941.

in 1941 there were about half a million jews in british mandate of palestine, most of the immigrants, and many of those immigrants were illegal immigrants.

i suppose i could have arbitrarily said 1917.

it has been my experience that when people bring up the colonisation o the americas or australia or whatever, they do it to somehow morally justify the israeli state.

i let the culture of the indigenous people or peoples hold. they determoine their own values and those values need to be respected. i am not real keen on foreign rule.

maybe i don't understand your point about colonisation?

some wrongs can't be undone. some can.

are you a lubavitcher?

I am just wondering how and when someone decides who is the 'rightful owner' and whether other examples of colonialism and expansionism are as problematic. You can see the question I asked Tinmore about colonial governments.

And I am not any sort of chased, lubav or otherwise.

 

[MJB12741]

HUH??? Eh, Tinmore, Resolution 181 was rejected by the PALESTINIANS, thus making it ineffective. Bye bye first shot for a partition & Palestinian State. It's called Palestinian mentality.

It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. Conquest by war before that time was not illegal but it is now. Israel cannot make legal claim to any land "won in a war."

Immigration is one thing where people move in and become citizens. The people have the right to decide immigration policy.

Settlements is another where people move in for the purpose of annexing land to an occupying power. It is illegal for an occupying power to annex land that it occupies.

I had always learned that acquiring land through war had been ruled "illegal" in offensive, not defensive wars. this should mean that if there is any arab aggression towards israel, it cannot succeed in acquiring land partitioned to israel. but we can forget about that. I'll also skip over the legal distinction between occupied and disputed territory. I have a separate question:

in 1947, through a partition, a country was created on the basis of religion. People were displaced because of it and thousands of refugees had to be absorbed. it was not created by war, but its continued history has involved at least 4 wars waging muslims against others. do you believe that the country created through partition does not have the right to exist and defend itself today?

There was no partition in 1947. UN General Assembly resolution 181 was rejected by the Security Council and was never implemented. No land was transferred. No borders were changed. No states were created.

 

[irosie91]

Tinmore has SPOKEN-----rape, pillage and theft of land became "illegal" about 100 years ago-----A MODIFICATION OF SHARIAH LAW IS STILL PENDING

 

[sealadaigh]

Like giving over parts of OUR land over to PLO and Hamas control.

Don't worry though. It is temporary.

"our land"???????????? Delusion reigns...LOL

Reality.

PS “Gaza: 40% Want To Leave” (Kislev 15, 5769 / December 12, '08)

Forty percent of Gaza Arabs would like to emigrate, according to a poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. In Judea and Samaria, 25 percent of Arab residents hope to leave...


Gaza: 40% Want to Leave - Latest News Briefs - Israel National News

HERE IS THE DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE PHILISTINE WEB SITE:

The percentage of those wishing to immigrate is much higher in the Gaza Strip (reaching 40%) than in the West Bank (standing at 25%).

oh, i get it. palestinians want to leave because of the friction between HAMAS and FATAH and israel has nothing to do with it...

i'm gonna have to go with hank's "LMFAO" on this one.

 

[sealadaigh]

I'm wondering how you came up with "200" years. It seems rather arbitrary. Is there something about the 200th year which then precludes others' settling which was absent in year 199? How long had there been native Americans on the north American continent before European settlers settled in? What about Aborigines in Australia?

Since you bring up that these are Western cultures and that non-Western cultures have different ideas, which idea should be applied to the mid East? Are there distinctions between the Turkish standard, the European one and the Egyptian one? What about the Greek or Roman one?

If you are against rewinding the clock then are you saying that you want to start from zero right now and accept facts on the ground as they are, or do you simply want to rewind to a particular spot and no further?

it is arbitrary. i was trying to get as close to 1948 and still consider your scenario about america and australia.

personally, i would say the difference between the colinisations you mention and israel was 1941.

in 1941 there were about half a million jews in british mandate of palestine, most of the immigrants, and many of those immigrants were illegal immigrants.

i suppose i could have arbitrarily said 1917.

it has been my experience that when people bring up the colonisation o the americas or australia or whatever, they do it to somehow morally justify the israeli state.

i let the culture of the indigenous people or peoples hold. they determoine their own values and those values need to be respected. i am not real keen on foreign rule.

maybe i don't understand your point about colonisation?

some wrongs can't be undone. some can.

are you a lubavitcher?

I am just wondering how and when someone decides who is the 'rightful owner' and whether other examples of colonialism and expansionism are as problematic. You can see the question I asked Tinmore about colonial governments.

And I am not any sort of chased, lubav or otherwise.

i think you are either going to have to be morer specific or more general and not mix them up. that is probably why tinsmore is confussed by your question, as am i.

generally, i think colonialism has always been wrong and :rightful ownership is foreign to me in the sense that some cultures do not have the same concepts of ownership.

did the indigenous americans own america. i don't think so and neither did they. they livedd here. does that mean spanish and english colonial enterprise had the right to claim ownership basedd upon their concepts...no, they did not.

if you are talking about the palestinian mandate and the balfour declaration of 1917, written during a war where the freedom and autonomy of small nations and the right of self governance by indigenous peoples, i do not think england had a right to give that land to europran jews.

or we can look at the atlantic charter in the midst of WWII when it wass acknowledged pretty much by the leaders two major western powers that that volonialism was pretty much a no go (i really do not want to discusss the untenable borders they left to those new states, nor do i want to discuss the lingering economic colonialism.)

i like the mau maus and jomo kenyatta.

i like the ANC and nelson mandela.

i like sealadaaigh oglaigh na hEireann and roibeard o'seachnasaigh.

i think tibet should be free of chinese oppression.

i am glad the british left malaya and singapore.

i am glad the australian aborigines are being given their rights.

i am happy for the people of hong kong.

and what i think is very problematic is the attitude of the european and russian jews and their attitudes of superiority living and displacing the people of palestine.

 

[rosends]

and what i think is very problematic is the attitude of the european and russian jews and their attitudes of superiority living and displacing the people of palestine.

there is to much you said, but in your list you left out some other cases of colonial rule using a partition to create a religiously based society and forcing refugees to seek life elsewhere. I'm simply asking if your sense is that a colonial power should not claim enough control to partition and create nations, especially those based in religion to the exclusion of others who might already live there.

in terms of "superiority" I'm not sure what you mean. I know plenty of people who have lived in israel for a long time who have no sense of superiority to anyone except any other driver on the road. i, in my visits, have been thankful for israeli arabs as they have helped me immensely (not exactly saving my life but certainly helping me in crisis). there is a separate thread, i'm sure, dealing with the appropriate nomenclature which reflects the historical concept of palestine so that needn't be a focus right now.

 

[irosie91]

The most brutal and deadly COLONIZATION program was----and STILL is the GLORIOUS AGE OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST---------it is still ongoing and adding to the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS it has murdered in genocides for the GLORY OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST--------a tiny nick in the system was created by the independence of south sudan------but most such efforts have produced massive genocides and failure-----Biafra is one case-----there is an ongoing albeit indolent genocide of christians and hindus in Kenya The UMMAH cites tinnie's hero IDI AMIN---- as a HERO OF ISLAM------for his murders of hundreds of thousands of "kaffiirin"------in very creative mutilating manner

 

[sealadaigh]

and what i think is very problematic is the attitude of the european and russian jews and their attitudes of superiority living and displacing the people of palestine.

there is to much you said, but in your list you left out some other cases of colonial rule using a partition to create a religiously based society and forcing refugees to seek life elsewhere. I'm simply asking if your sense is that a colonial power should not claim enough control to partition and create nations, especially those based in religion to the exclusion of others who might already live there.

in terms of "superiority" I'm not sure what you mean. I know plenty of people who have lived in israel for a long time who have no sense of superiority to anyone except any other driver on the road. i, in my visits, have been thankful for israeli arabs as they have helped me immensely (not exactly saving my life but certainly helping me in crisis). there is a separate thread, i'm sure, dealing with the appropriate nomenclature which reflects the historical concept of palestine so that needn't be a focus right now.

i left out a lot. i don't think you want me to try to recall all of them

i think colonialism is wrong, for whatever reason. i think that, when two cultures collide, that religion ahs very littlwe to do with it in practical matters and certainly not as a cause.

the first indochina war wasn't a war between catholics and buddhists. the war in the siz northeastern contioes of ireland isn't a war btween catholics and protestants, and the arab israeli conflict is not between muslims and ews.

and yes, i left some out but...

the one thing a lot of these disputes hinges upon are disputes between colonialists and the native people. i mean, how hard do you think it would have been or the arab peoples to wipe out the 50,000 or so jews in al quds in 1900? easy, but they were not colonialists.

 

[rosends]

and what i think is very problematic is the attitude of the european and russian jews and their attitudes of superiority living and displacing the people of palestine.

there is to much you said, but in your list you left out some other cases of colonial rule using a partition to create a religiously based society and forcing refugees to seek life elsewhere. I'm simply asking if your sense is that a colonial power should not claim enough control to partition and create nations, especially those based in religion to the exclusion of others who might already live there.

in terms of "superiority" I'm not sure what you mean. I know plenty of people who have lived in israel for a long time who have no sense of superiority to anyone except any other driver on the road. i, in my visits, have been thankful for israeli araubs as they have helped me immensely (not exactly saving my life but certainly helping me in crisis). there is a separate thread, i'm sure, dealing with the appropriate nomenclature which reflects the historical concept of palestine so that needn't be a focus right now.

i left out a lot. i don't think you want me to try to recall all of them

i think colonialism is wrong, for whatever reason. i think that, when two cultures collide, that religion ahs very littlwe to do with it in practical matters and certainly not as a cause.

the first indochina war wasn't a war between catholics and buddhists. the war in the siz northeastern contioes of ireland isn't a war btween catholics and protestants, and the arab israeli conflict is not between muslims and ews.

and yes, i left some out but...

the one thing a lot of these disputes hinges upon are disputes between colonialists and the native people. i mean, how hard do you think it would have been or the arab peoples to wipe out the 50,000 or so jews in al quds in 1900? easy, but they were not colonialists.

I think that that glosses over violence against Jews which goes back hundreds of years (documented) and which denies colonialism as a cause. The claims of peaceful coexistence are a simplification in order to create a false contrast.

As far as I understand both populations of Jew and Arab are complex mixes of locals and immigrants which developed over the generations. I still don't know how someone chooses a date and decides that as of "x" the people there are the natives.

The land was ruled by a number of non-local groups and fought over repeatedly. The British in 1947 did what they did: they chose a future for their holding and imposed it on the populace (and as I know you understand, one often imposes an idea through introduction well before implementation). If we say the British were at fault, do we make the same claim about their other partitions and created nations? Do we undo what they did across the board?

 

[MJB12741]

Only if & when Israel ends the occupation by finding a way to free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands will there be a lasting peace between them.

 

[Jos]

IDI AMIN---- as a HERO OF ISLAM------for his murders of hundreds of thousands of "kaffiirin"------in very creative mutilating manner

Revealed: how Israel helped Amin to take power

But why was Israel so interested in a landlocked country in Central Africa? The reason is spelt out by Slater in a later telegram. Israel was backing rebellion in southern Sudan to punish Sudan for supporting the Arab cause in the Six-Day War. "They do not want the rebels to win. They want to keep them fighting."

The Israelis had helped train the new Uganda army in the 1960s. Shortly after independence Amin was sent to Israel on a training course. When he became chief of staff of the new army Amin also ran a sideline operation for the Israelis, supplying arms and ammunition to the rebels in southern Sudan. Amin had his own motive for helping them: many of his own people, the Kakwa, live in southern Sudan. Obote, however, wanted peace in southern Sudan. That worried the Israelis and they were even more worried when, in November 1970 Obote sacked Amin. Their stick for beating Sudan was suddenly taken away.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-israel-helped-amin-to-take-power-536162.html

 

[Jos]

Only if & when Israel ends the occupation by finding a way to free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands will there be a lasting peace between them.

taking "Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands" is a good idea as it would empty the refugee camps In Lebanon,Syria,Jordan and Egypt.
It might just work if at the same time Russian, Ashkenazi and American immigrants were returned back to where they came from too
Should they so desire

 

[MJB12741]

Problem is that not a single Arab country will take their Palestinians back. And not many Jews in Israel want to return back to Europe.

Only if & when Israel ends the occupation by finding a way to free the Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands will there be a lasting peace between them.

taking "Palestinians back to their indigenous homelands" is a good idea as it would empty the refugee camps In Lebanon,Syria,Jordan and Egypt.
It might just work if at the same time Russian, Ashkenazi and American immigrants were returned back to where they came from too
Should they so desire

 

[sealadaigh]

there is to much you said, but in your list you left out some other cases of colonial rule using a partition to create a religiously based society and forcing refugees to seek life elsewhere. I'm simply asking if your sense is that a colonial power should not claim enough control to partition and create nations, especially those based in religion to the exclusion of others who might already live there.

in terms of "superiority" I'm not sure what you mean. I know plenty of people who have lived in israel for a long time who have no sense of superiority to anyone except any other driver on the road. i, in my visits, have been thankful for israeli araubs as they have helped me immensely (not exactly saving my life but certainly helping me in crisis). there is a separate thread, i'm sure, dealing with the appropriate nomenclature which reflects the historical concept of palestine so that needn't be a focus right now.

i left out a lot. i don't think you want me to try to recall all of them

i think colonialism is wrong, for whatever reason. i think that, when two cultures collide, that religion ahs very littlwe to do with it in practical matters and certainly not as a cause.

the first indochina war wasn't a war between catholics and buddhists. the war in the siz northeastern contioes of ireland isn't a war btween catholics and protestants, and the arab israeli conflict is not between muslims and ews.

and yes, i left some out but...

the one thing a lot of these disputes hinges upon are disputes between colonialists and the native people. i mean, how hard do you think it would have been or the arab peoples to wipe out the 50,000 or so jews in al quds in 1900? easy, but they were not colonialists.

I think that that glosses over violence against Jews which goes back hundreds of years (documented) and which denies colonialism as a cause. The claims of peaceful coexistence are a simplification in order to create a false contrast.

As far as I understand both populations of Jew and Arab are complex mixes of locals and immigrants which developed over the generations. I still don't know how someone chooses a date and decides that as of "x" the people there are the natives.

The land was ruled by a number of non-local groups and fought over repeatedly. The British in 1947 did what they did: they chose a future for their holding and imposed it on the populace (and as I know you understand, one often imposes an idea through introduction well before implementation). If we say the British were at fault, do we make the same claim about their other partitions and created nations? Do we undo what they did across the board?

many seem to be undoing themselves. the sins of the father are being visited on their adopted sons.

you are molding your arguments to fit your ends. all i am saying is be cconsistant. so you think people have the right to take by force of arms the lands they inhabited at your arbitrary date of 2000 years ago, or better yet, a date of their choosing?

i'm cool with that myself. i thrive on chaos and while i do not seek out or believe that violence is the best way to solve problems, i am not at all a non-violent person or paciist. i've been in the army and i've been in west belfast and i have skills. i also have what i like to call an "amorality switch" in my brain that allows me to function well in civil and polite society when it is off but when i click it on, i can get the bad jobs done dispassionately with little or no serious long term effects on my psyche other than the occasional nightmare when i am caught of guard..

"therefore jew, though justice be thy plea"...really is a two way street...and as we say in the streets and jungles..."reap the whirlwind, motherfucker."

do you have any point at all and would you get to it, or would you rather continue with this obvious sophistry dance? i'm good either way.

 

[irosie91]

yes Jos----Idi Amin got help from Israel and the Taliban pigs got help from the USA-------another lesson in dealing with those who lick the ass of a rapist pig

 

[irosie91]

rosends greetings----you post with too much intelligence------deach is going to melt

 

[MJB12741]

Same old Seal. For a man with his poochie problem running & hiding & pissing his pants when dealing with other men. What a man!
Edited.

i left out a lot. i don't think you want me to try to recall all of them

i think colonialism is wrong, for whatever reason. i think that, when two cultures collide, that religion ahs very littlwe to do with it in practical matters and certainly not as a cause.

the first indochina war wasn't a war between catholics and buddhists. the war in the siz northeastern contioes of ireland isn't a war btween catholics and protestants, and the arab israeli conflict is not between muslims and ews.

and yes, i left some out but...

the one thing a lot of these disputes hinges upon are disputes between colonialists and the native people. i mean, how hard do you think it would have been or the arab peoples to wipe out the 50,000 or so jews in al quds in 1900? easy, but they were not colonialists.

I think that that glosses over violence against Jews which goes back hundreds of years (documented) and which denies colonialism as a cause. The claims of peaceful coexistence are a simplification in order to create a false contrast.

As far as I understand both populations of Jew and Arab are complex mixes of locals and immigrants which developed over the generations. I still don't know how someone chooses a date and decides that as of "x" the people there are the natives.

The land was ruled by a number of non-local groups and fought over repeatedly. The British in 1947 did what they did: they chose a future for their holding and imposed it on the populace (and as I know you understand, one often imposes an idea through introduction well before implementation). If we say the British were at fault, do we make the same claim about their other partitions and created nations? Do we undo what they did across the board?

many seem to be undoing themselves. the sins of the father are being visited on their adopted sons.

you are molding your arguments to fit your ends. all i am saying is be cconsistant. so you think people have the right to take by force of arms the lands they inhabited at your arbitrary date of 2000 years ago, or better yet, a date of their choosing?

i'm cool with that myself. i thrive on chaos and while i do not seek out or believe that violence is the best way to solve problems, i am not at all a non-violent person or paciist. i've been in the army and i've been in west belfast and i have skills. i also have what i like to call an "amorality switch" in my brain that allows me to function well in civil and polite society when it is off but when i click it on, i can get the bad jobs done dispassionately with little or no serious long term effects on my psyche other than the occasional nightmare when i am caught of guard..

"therefore jew, though justice be thy plea"...really is a two way street...and as we say in the streets and jungles..."reap the whirlwind, motherfucker."

do you have any point at all and would you get to it, or would you rather continue with this obvious sophistry dance? i'm good either way.

 

[rosends]

you are molding your arguments to fit your ends. all i am saying is be cconsistant. so you think people have the right to take by force of arms the lands they inhabited at your arbitrary date of 2000 years ago, or better yet, a date of their choosing?

I'm not molding anything -- I am asking about the consequences of a real world event and your opinion about how to deal with it. Should we retroactively reject the British 1947 partition? As it relates to the mideast, I never set any arbitrary date -- 2000 years ago or otherwise. I have intentionally NOT set a particular date; I asked for one from people who think that there can be such a date but i didn't posit one.

i'm cool with that myself. i thrive on chaos and while i do not seek out or believe that violence is the best way to solve problems, i am not at all a non-violent person or paciist. i've been in the army and i've been in west belfast and i have skills. i also have what i like to call an "amorality switch" in my brain that allows me to function well in civil and polite society when it is off but when i click it on, i can get the bad jobs done dispassionately with little or no serious long term effects on my psyche other than the occasional nightmare when i am caught of guard..

I thrive on calm and quiet and am more the pacifist (or even coward) than anything else. My neuroses tend towards the staid and predictable.

"therefore jew, though justice be thy plea"...really is a two way street...and as we say in the streets and jungles..."reap the whirlwind, motherfucker."

do you have any point at all and would you get to it, or would you rather continue with this obvious sophistry dance? i'm good either way.

if you you believe in a war of the jungle then does this mean you have no problem with what others would call israel's "aggression"? Wouldn't that be as justified as anything else? And as to my point, it is simply to find an answer to a question of consistency -- do you feel that Britain had no right to partition in 1947 and create refugees and violence and thus we should undo partition?

 

[P F Tinmore]

you are molding your arguments to fit your ends. all i am saying is be cconsistant. so you think people have the right to take by force of arms the lands they inhabited at your arbitrary date of 2000 years ago, or better yet, a date of their choosing?

I'm not molding anything -- I am asking about the consequences of a real world event and your opinion about how to deal with it. Should we retroactively reject the British 1947 partition? As it relates to the mideast, I never set any arbitrary date -- 2000 years ago or otherwise. I have intentionally NOT set a particular date; I asked for one from people who think that there can be such a date but i didn't posit one.

i'm cool with that myself. i thrive on chaos and while i do not seek out or believe that violence is the best way to solve problems, i am not at all a non-violent person or paciist. i've been in the army and i've been in west belfast and i have skills. i also have what i like to call an "amorality switch" in my brain that allows me to function well in civil and polite society when it is off but when i click it on, i can get the bad jobs done dispassionately with little or no serious long term effects on my psyche other than the occasional nightmare when i am caught of guard..

I thrive on calm and quiet and am more the pacifist (or even coward) than anything else. My neuroses tend towards the staid and predictable.

"therefore jew, though justice be thy plea"...really is a two way street...and as we say in the streets and jungles..."reap the whirlwind, motherfucker."

do you have any point at all and would you get to it, or would you rather continue with this obvious sophistry dance? i'm good either way.

if you you believe in a war of the jungle then does this mean you have no problem with what others would call israel's "aggression"? Wouldn't that be as justified as anything else? And as to my point, it is simply to find an answer to a question of consistency -- do you feel that Britain had no right to partition in 1947 and create refugees and violence and thus we should undo partition?

Should we retroactively reject the British 1947 partition?

-- do you feel that Britain had no right to partition in 1947...

There was no partition in 1947.