PDA

View Full Version : Israel-Palestine / religious terrorism (was non-islamic religious terrorism)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ian Murray
08-12-2012, 07:26 PM
And it should be a no-brainer except for leftards.
Except Israel's former friends are no longer willing to give Netanyahu a moral victory in the UN when he flouts their calls for restraint. Punishing the Palestinians for seeking UN recognition is mean-spirited and vindictive, and looks exactly that way to the world.


Yes, they have a tiny fraction of the original Palestinian Mandate.
Granted as a free gift by the UN. If it wasn't good enough, they weren't forced to take it.


They rightly took more of the historically Jewish homeland in the Six Day War, because they were only 9 miles wide before then.
It hasn't been Jewish homeland since pre-diaspora thousands of years ago. The Jews lost, the Romans won. There is clearly no extant Jewish right to the land, any more than Nazi Germany had any historic right to take Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia.


The Arab thugs you love so much will never be satisfied until all Israel is pushed into the sea—they say so!
Apart from Iran, that sort of extremism is gone and realpolitik rules. The Palestinians want a two-state solution (Palestine and Israel). Israel wants to keep the Palestinians stateless and subjugated.


Rubbish, they thought that the land transcended ownership, and had frequent wars of conquest.
I'd hardly expect a Randian like you to appreciate communal ownership.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2012, 12:52 PM
Except Israel's former friends are no longer willing to give Netanyahu a moral victory in the UN when he flouts their calls for restraint. Punishing the Palestinians for seeking UN recognition is mean-spirited and vindictive, and looks exactly that way to the world.
It's a shame that they didn't punish the "Palestinian" thugs in IM's favorite organization, Hamas, for its rocket firing by a ground assault on Gaza.

But Israel is merely building settlements in its own capital, while the UN thugocracy granted recognition to a "Palestine" that won't recognize Israel's right to exist.


It hasn't been Jewish homeland since pre-diaspora thousands of years ago. The Jews lost, the Romans won. There is clearly no extant Jewish right to the land, any more than Nazi Germany had any historic right to take Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia.
You haven't a clue. There has been a constant Jewish presence in the land all through that time. More to the point, your ilk whinges about poor little Palestinians who haven't been in the land since they left in 1948, at the urging of the Arabs, still pretending to be "refugees". Of course, the Arab world keeps them in squalid camps.

The Sudetenland was a pretext for Hitler, but the Czechs were not blameless. After WW1 and Wilson's self-determination crap, various Czech nationalists were unfairly discriminating against the ethnic Germans in the area.
Speaking of which, ethnic Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe after WW2, with terrible loss of life. Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz writes (http://www.carasso.com/israel/dershowitz.html):


For example, following the end of World War II, approximately fifteen million ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled from their homes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and other Central and Eastern European areas where their families had lived for centuries. Two million died during this forced expulsion. Czechoslovakia alone expelled nearly three million Sudeten Germans, turning them into displaced persons. The United States, Britain, and the international community in general approved these expulsions, as necessary to secure a more lasting peace. [...] President Franklin Roosevelt's assistant Harry Hopkins memorialized his boss's view that although transfer of ethnic Germans "is a hard procedure, it is the only way to maintain peace.

In Czechoslovakia, exemptions were made for those who could prove opposition to the Nazis, but many chose waive exemptions anyway, showing they justifiably feared the bigoted anti-Germanism even more than exile.

Dershowitz compares various refugees (http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/return_csm.htm):


What is beyond dispute is that many of the refugees - regardless of how they became refugees - were placed in miserable camps and kept there for half a century by the Arab nations in which they sought refuge.

The millions of other refugees who were forced to leave their homes in the decades following World War II - the Sudeten-Germans, the Greeks and Turks, Pakistanis and Indians, and the 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries - have all been integrated and normalized. Only the Palestinian refugees have been kept in camps by their Arab hosts. The reason was and is entirely political: to maintain resentment and to hold open the empty promise of a triumphant return that would achieve demographically what the Arab nations have been unable to achieve militarily - destruction of the Jewish state.

Israel sees the right not as an individual, humanitarian claim, but rather as a collective, political assertion designed to turn Israel into another Arab state. In 1949, Egypt's foreign minister candidly acknowledged: "It is well known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of their homeland, and not as slaves. More explicitly: they intend to annihilate the state of Israel."

That is why Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may have been correct in principle when he announced recently that he would never accept a right of return by Palestinian refugees and their descendants. His argument was simple: The Palestinians, aided by the surrounding Arab countries, started a war against the new state of Israel in an effort to destroy it; had they instead accepted the partition - the two-state solution - Israel would have accepted the presence of significant numbers of Palestinians in the new Jewish state. But once the Palestinians started a genocidal war, the inevitable consequence was the creation of refugees. Even if some were in fact forced to leave by Israeli military commanders, such actions were in response to the attack by the Arabs.

The best proof of the correctness of Mr. Olmert's view is to imagine what would be happening today if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine if the Palestinians had won and many Israelis had been forced to leave, while others left of their own volition or as the result of fear. Now imagine those Jews seeking a right of return, either in the immediate aftermath of the war or 60 years later. It is inconceivable that a Palestinian state would grant Jewish refugees a right of return. Certainly that would be true if the number of Israeli refugees and their descendants threatened to outnumber the Palestinian population. How can a right of return go only one way? Has Yemen offered its Jewish refugee population any right of return or compensation? Has Egypt? Has Iran? Has Iraq? Has Syria? Of course not.

Of all the post-WWII refugee claims, the Palestinian claim is the weakest, and yet it has received the widest and most vocal support from the United Nations and the international community.


Apart from Iran, that sort of extremism is gone and realpolitik rules. The Palestinians want a two-state solution (Palestine and Israel). Israel wants to keep the Palestinians stateless and subjugated.
Crap. Netanyahu said he would be the first to recognize a Palestinian state, as long as they recognized the Jewish state.


I'd hardly expect a Randian like you
Who is a Randian? I've explained before the difference between Rand and classical free market economics several times. E.g. (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=217034&postcount=459):

She believed selfishness was a virtue to be encouraged. Adam Smith and Sowell and I who held/hold to the "tragic vision" merely believe(d) it was a reality of the human condition, so realistic policies need to take it into account. Sowell and Friedman have also adduced much evidence that government regulation often hurts the group it's meant to help; e.g. the current welfare bureaucracy produces poverty traps; regulations often protect established businesses by erecting barriers to entry of competitors.


to appreciate communal ownership.
Evidently IM doesn't know or care about the Tragedy of the Commons (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html).

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2012, 10:41 AM
Israel's Netanyahu has angry words for international community (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/10/israel-netanyahu-has-angry-words-for-international-community)
Published December 10, 2012


Israel's prime minister on Monday accused the international community of "deafening silence" in response to recent vows by the head of the Hamas militant group to fight on until the Jewish state is destroyed, appearing unmoved by the gathering storm of global condemnation of his government's plans to continue settling the West Bank.

Here are just a few excerpts....


Speaking to foreign reporters, Netanyahu accused the international community of having double standards, condemning not-yet-built settlements in the West Bank while standing quiet during a historic visit to the Gaza Strip by Hamas' exiled leader, Khaled Mashaal.

"This weekend the leader of Hamas, sitting next to the Hamas leader of Gaza, a man who praised Osama Bin Laden, this weekend openly called for the destruction of Israel. Where was the outrage? Where were the U.N. resolutions? Where was President Abbas?" Netanyahu said.

"Why weren't Palestinian diplomats summoned to European and other capitals to explain why the PA president not only refused to condemn this but actually declared his intention to unite with Hamas. There was nothing, there was silence and it was deafening silence," he added.

Netanyahu has long complained that the world unfairly singles out Israel for criticism. In Monday's address, he accused the United Nations of passing an unbalanced resolution that supported Palestinian independence but did not address Israeli security concerns.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2012, 12:00 AM
An atheist talks sense for a change: Pat Condell on the abject failure of Sweden's dhimmitudinous multi-culti nightmare: Islamofacist violence, rapes, and virulent antisemitism.


_25vUIHxdsw

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2012, 09:51 AM
Leftist antisemites love to accuse Israel of genocide, apartheid, atrocities, and the like, while ignoring the appalling human rights violations in Islamofascist countries. For one thing, as this map shows, they are practically judenrein, just like their WW2 allies, the Nazis:

IBFBvceJvIU

pax
16-12-2012, 07:22 PM
Leftist antisemites love to accuse Israel of genocide, apartheid, atrocities, and the like, while ignoring the appalling human rights violations in Islamofascist countries. For one thing, as this map shows, they are practically judenrein, just like their WW2 allies, the Nazis:


Gee, you would almost think that there was a Jewish state formed in 1948 which granted citizenship and land to encourage Jews to move to Israel.

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2012, 04:38 AM
Gee, you would almost think that there was a Jewish state formed in 1948 which granted citizenship and land to encourage Jews to move to Israel.
Yes, and evidently this tiny state was needed when Islamofascist countries expelled innocent Jews and stole their property. But even that little sliver of land is too much for the Islamists and other antisemites.

pax
17-12-2012, 03:26 PM
Yes, and evidently this tiny state was needed when Islamofascist countries expelled innocent Jews and stole their property. But even that little sliver of land is too much for the Islamists and other antisemites.

Again with the change-the-subject tactic. You publish this little map (the accuracy of which's figures I have no idea), calmly imply that the reduction in Jewish population is due to genocide, and ignore the single most obvious reason for said population changes.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2012, 06:13 AM
Again with the change-the-subject tactic. You publish this little map (the accuracy of which's figures I have no idea), calmly imply that the reduction in Jewish population is due to genocide, and ignore the single most obvious reason for said population changes.
A lot of it was fortunately due to expulsion (with stealing their property). But these 800,000 are the forgotten refugees, precisely because Israel resettled them in their tiny sliver of land.

Ian Murray
18-12-2012, 08:01 AM
A lot of it was fortunately due to expulsion (with stealing their property). But these 800,000 are the forgotten refugees, precisely because Israel resettled them in their tiny sliver of land.
It was fortunate that they could be resettled on the property of the Palestinian refugees who fled from the fighting, as refugees tend to do.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2012, 08:23 AM
It was fortunate that they could be resettled on the property of the Palestinian refugees who fled from the fighting, as refugees tend to do.
Especially when Arab leaders urged them to, with a promise that they could return once they had finished their wartime ally Hitler's plan to wipe out the Jews.

But even if IM's antisemitic accusations against Israel were right, it would still not justify the Islamofascist countries' mass expulsion of their Jews and theft of their property.

Ian Murray
18-12-2012, 08:40 AM
But even if IM's antisemitic accusations against Israel were right, it would still not justify the Islamofascist countries' mass expulsion of their Jews and theft of their property.
What exactly is antisemitic and accusatory about stating a fact, one which you conveniently overlook when suggesting that Israel took in the Jewish refugees at great sacrifice.

Ian Murray
22-12-2012, 08:44 PM
Israeli democracy at work:

Election committee bans Palestinian MK Zoabi from participating in elections (http://972mag.com/election-committee-bans-palestinian-mk-zoabi-from-participating-in-elections/62346/)
+972, Tel Aviv
19.12.12.


Israel’s Central Election Committee (CEC) voted today (Wednesday) to disqualify Palestinian Knesset Member Haneen Zoabi from participating in the coming elections. MK Zoabi is the number two candidate on Balad’s Knesset list. The decision is automatically transferred to the Supreme Court, which will hear the appeal next week. Earlier today, Balad announced that if the Supreme Court doesn’t allow Zoabi to run, the entire party will withdraw from the elections....

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2012, 07:56 AM
What exactly is antisemitic and accusatory about stating a fact, one which you conveniently overlook when suggesting that Israel took in the Jewish refugees at great sacrifice.
They did. So what's the excuse for the Islamofascist nations not taking in the Palestinian "refugees", when they have 600 times more land and great oil wealth?

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2012, 08:00 AM
Israeli democracy at work:
Of course, IM cares about Arabs voting only in Israel; he cares nothing about that Muslim Brotherhood thug seizing despotic power in Egypt, or the lack of free voting in his favourite African and Arab countries.

Ian Murray
23-12-2012, 08:12 AM
Of course, IM cares about Arabs voting only in Israel; he cares nothing about that Muslim Brotherhood thug seizing despotic power in Egypt, or the lack of free voting in his favourite African and Arab countries.
I'm not the one who claims Israel is the only true democracy in the region.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2012, 09:12 AM
I'm not the one who claims Israel is the only true democracy in the region.
It is, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But you are the one who thinks it's OK for black despots of African countries to murder black people, because supposedly it's all part of their self-determination. Not a peep from atheopathic leftards about the butchery of Christians—they probably deserve it, according to leftards.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2012, 03:29 PM
_lgnUZxJfsU
Atheist Pat Condell talks sense about Obamov's wimpy Dhimmitude and silence when the Islamofascists in Ian Murray's favorite countries murder Christians, and traitor to American values like freedom of speech and religion.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2013, 07:48 AM
More from the favorite religion of Ian Murray and Pax: religion of peace or religion of pieces (its adherents tore a Christian to pieces):

Syria rebels 'beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs' as fears grow over Islamist atrocities (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255103/Syria-rebels-beheaded-Christian-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html)
Christian Andrei Arbashe, 38, was kidnapped and beheaded by rebel fighters in northern town of Ras Al-Ayn on the Turkish border
News came as pro-government forces celebrated their victory against rebels near Aleppo Airport

Ian Murray
02-01-2013, 07:52 AM
More from the favorite religion of Ian Murray and Pax: religion of peace or religion of pieces (its adherents tore a Christian to pieces):

It's you, not me, gung ho about popular insurrections against tryrannical governments.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2013, 09:00 AM
It's you, not me, gung ho about popular insurrections against tryrannical governments.
Only if the popular insurrection leads to more liberty, as with the American revolution. But note that the American founding fathers rejected pure democracy as leading to tyranny of the majority. Hence they instituted constitutional protections on freedom of religion and their systems of checks and balances. In the Arab Spring, "democracy" just led to 10 from your favorite religion, Islamofascism, and one Christian voting on who should be butchered.

But you are the one gung ho about countries in Africa throwing off colonialism and apartheid even if the replacements were far more brutal.

Ian Murray
02-01-2013, 09:47 AM
Only if the popular insurrection leads to more liberty, as with the American revolution. But note that the American founding fathers rejected pure democracy as leading to tyranny of the majority. Hence they instituted constitutional protections on freedom of religion and their systems of checks and balances. In the Arab Spring, "democracy" just led to 10 from your favorite religion, Islamofascism, and one Christian voting on who should be butchered.

How many popular insurrections have led to more liberty in the last century or so? Nevertheless, are not the Syrian insurgents fighting for more liberty (despite isolated atrocities, as in any war)?

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2013, 04:31 AM
How many popular insurrections have led to more liberty in the last century or so? Nevertheless, are not the Syrian insurgents fighting for more liberty (despite isolated atrocities, as in any war)?
Only liberty to butcher Christians and impose Sharia Law. The Arab Spring has become a Christian nightmare in all places it's occurred: Libya and Egypt and even Iraq. But Ian Murray is OK with religious bigotry and genocide, as long as it's against Christians.

Ian Murray
03-01-2013, 07:41 AM
Only liberty to butcher Christians and impose Sharia Law. The Arab Spring has become a Christian nightmare in all places it's occurred: Libya and Egypt and even Iraq. But Ian Murray is OK with religious bigotry and genocide, as long as it's against Christians.
I see - only Christians are permitted to rebel against their governments. Christian bigotry is OK, but not Christian extremism, while all Muslims are bad.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2013, 12:36 PM
I see—only Christians are permitted to rebel against their governments. Christian bigotry is OK, but not Christian extremism, while all Muslims are bad.
This is IM's own atheopathic christophobic bigotry talking. The Americans rebelled for greater liberty, both religious and financial; the Islamofascists want Islamic Sharia tyranny. In all IM's favorite countries: Egypt, Zimbabwe, Cuba, the late unlamented Soviet Union, the revolutions have been followed by tyranny and democide (murder by government).

Ian Murray
06-01-2013, 10:31 AM
Christian church in Israel desecrated by Jewish vandals (http://972mag.com/anti-christian-graffiti-sprayed-on-church-in-destroyed-galilee-village-of-birem/63190/)

The internally displaced community of Bir’em found abusive graffiti, stars of David and the word ‘revenge’ sprayed on its church, graveyard and other buildings. Yet the act of vandalism is but one of the community’s problems, as it continues its struggle for return...

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2013, 08:57 PM
Rocket From Gaza Hits Israel, Breaking Cease-Fire (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/world/middleeast/rocket-from-gaza-hits-israel-breaking-cease-fire.html?_r=0)

Adamski
26-02-2013, 11:08 PM
Thanks Igor - that is very sad, as indeed is what Ian posted immediately before yours.

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2013, 01:08 AM
Thanks Igor - that is very sad, as indeed is what Ian posted immediately before yours.
Indeed it is. Mind you, IM cares about the vandalism of Christian churches only when Jews do it, not when Islamofascists or Communists do it, which has been far more prevalent.

Ian Murray
27-02-2013, 10:23 AM
Indeed it is. Mind you, IM cares about the vandalism of Christian churches only when Jews do it, not when Islamofascists or Communists do it, which has been far more prevalent.
I leave it to Jono to report on non-Christian and non-Jewish extremism. I don't mind reporting other extremist events he tends to miss.

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2013, 02:02 PM
I leave it to Jono to report on non-Christian and non-Jewish extremism. I don't mind reporting other extremist events he tends to miss.
It's easy to miss because it is so rare. But the Dhimmitudinous Left must be wilfully obtuse about the Islamofascist violence.

Ian Murray
23-03-2013, 01:01 PM
Netanyahu phones Erdogan to apologize for deaths of Turkish citizens on Gaza flotilla (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-phones-erdogan-to-apologize-for-deaths-of-turkish-citizens-on-gaza-flotilla.premium-1.511394/netanyahu-phones-erdogan-to-apologize-for-deaths-of-turkish-citizens-on-gaza-flotilla.premium-1.511394)
Haaretz
22.3.13


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday and apologized over the deaths of nine Turkish citizens during the 2010 Israel Navy raid on the Gaza flotilla.

Erdogan accepted the apology during his conversation with Netanyahu. Erdogan's office later released a statement saying Turkey valued its "friendship" with Israel. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also said on Friday that all of Turkey's fundamental demands had been met with Netanyahu's apology.

According to a report in Turkey's Hurriyet, Davutoglu also said that Erdogan called both Hamas Prime Minister in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to get their approval before accepting the apology. The conversations took place just moments before Netanyahu's call, the report said.

Ties between Israel and Turkey deteriorated due to the May 2010 raid on the Mavi Marmara vessel, which was on its way from Turkey to the Gaza Strip. The ship was part of a flotilla aimed at breaking through a blockade Israel had placed on the coastal territory.

During Friday's phone call, Netanyahu told Erdogan that an Israeli investigation into the incident revealed several operational errors made by IDF forces. Netanyahu "expressed his apologies to the Turkish people for any error that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete an agreement to provide compensation to the families of the victims," according to a statement by the Prime Minister's Office.

Netanyahu added that Israel had removed a number of restrictions upon the movement of citizens and goods in all the Palestinian territories, including the Gaza Strip, and would continue to do so as long as the security situation remained peaceful. The two leaders agreed to continue working to improve the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories.

Netanyahu "expressed regret for the deterioration in the relations between the two countries," according to the Prime Minister's Office. The prime minister also pledged to settle the differences in opinion between the two countries, with the aim of advancing peace and stability in the region. During the conversation, Netanyahu made it clear that "the tragic consequences of the Mavi Marmara flotilla were unintentional, and Israel regrets any injury or loss of life." ...

Realpolitik triumphs over Israeli intransigence (aided by the absence of hardliner Avigdor Lieberman, former Foreign Minister, from the new cabinet).

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2013, 03:10 PM
Moderation Notice

People who must engage in cutting and pasting are reminded that if a site's copyright rules require linking then they must post a link to the specific page they are linking to.

Wikipedia rules require linking.

antichrist
26-03-2013, 02:18 AM
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/03/nationwide-campaign-israel.html
many good press releases and comment here

and it is run by Jews completely against what Israel is doing to the Palestines - talk about white-anting the efforts of Zionists on this board


why did Palestine have to pay for Europe's sins?

antichrist
27-03-2013, 08:03 PM
[moved from Toolbox-Detox - mod]

Axiom may be an elusive character but his/her politics are principled and forthright. He/she will stand up for unpopular causes if hold traction. And mostly these issues are extremely important - he does not claim disinterest. BUt I agree he should not flood the board if returns

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2013, 10:27 PM
Axiom may be an elusive character but his/her politics are principled and forthright.

They are not "principled". He just believes more or less whatever unprincipled garbage the ignomedia fills his head with.

antichrist
28-03-2013, 11:38 AM
They are not "principled". He just believes more or less whatever unprincipled garbage the ignomedia fills his head with.

well on the Palestinian/Israel issue he supports the Palestinians. Yourself with a degree in political science has opted for a two-state solution, the associated implacations that go with such would have been immoral and illegal since the first concept was first touted. No justice at all in a two state solution - no morality, just a condoning of many illegal and immoral acts. As some court's and laws and referundums(?) in the US has made gay marriage illegal and you are against such prohibition. Well the UN has similarly made a mistake re creation of Israel and the Palestinians are also against that decision as it effects their human rights etc. but you accept that decision! As this could belong to about 3 threads you can move to whereever as you are boss

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2013, 02:00 PM
well on the Palestinian/Israel issue he supports the Palestinians.

Or more accurately opposes Israel and spreads conspiratwaddle about it.


Yourself with a degree in political science has opted for a two-state solution, the associated implacations that go with such would have been immoral and illegal since the first concept was first touted.

Illegal under what law? So-called "international law" which only exists to the extent that nations conform to it?

I prefer a two-state solution (and not just one that leaves Palestine as overpopulated scraps) because I support an end to the conflict. A single-state solution either means that a major ethnicity has no homeland or that the Palestinians are not only dominated and marginalised but also deprived of effective self-determination. You can be as moralistic and ideological as you like about it but the cost of doing so is that people go on killing each other, and you know which side gets killed the most in that scenario.


As some court's and laws and referundums(?) in the US has made gay marriage illegal and you are against such prohibition. Well the UN has similarly made a mistake re creation of Israel and the Palestinians are also against that decision as it effects their human rights etc. but you accept that decision!

This is a ridiculous analogy since same-sex marriage is a simple matter of basic human freedom and equal rights, the granting of which harms nobody. It is not at all comparable to what I believe you support in the case of I-P - ie a solution that would damage the human rights of Israelis in attempting to rectify supposed human wrongs that rest on arguments about ancient history and that occurred many decades ago.

antichrist
28-03-2013, 05:06 PM
Or more accurately opposes Israel and spreads conspiratwaddle about it.



Illegal under what law? So-called "international law" which only exists to the extent that nations conform to it?

I prefer a two-state solution (and not just one that leaves Palestine as overpopulated scraps) because I support an end to the conflict. A single-state solution either means that a major ethnicity has no homeland or that the Palestinians are not only dominated and marginalised but also deprived of effective self-determination. You can be as moralistic and ideological as you like about it but the cost of doing so is that people go on killing each other, and you know which side gets killed the most in that scenario.



This is a ridiculous analogy since same-sex marriage is a simple matter of basic human freedom and equal rights, the granting of which harms nobody. It is not at all comparable to what I believe you support in the case of I-P - ie a solution that would damage the human rights of Israelis in attempting to rectify supposed human wrongs that rest on arguments about ancient history and that occurred many decades ago.


Well the two-state solution is to be set up is on the premise of a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. OF course the Jewish state is to have borders. Not finally declared (not that they have right or power to) by Israel as is trying to steal more land. From the time since Jewish migration there has become an issue, approx 1930, there has been a Palestinian presence over the whole area.

It is impossible to have a Jewish state (that must by definition by discrimatory) whilst the presence of Palestinians exist - The Zionists (esp Ultra-Orthodox) realise this, which is why they have introduced many discriminatory laws in an attempt to drive the Palestinians out. Because they do not want a multi-cultural state.

As there is no peace treaty that has been carried through with or respected, effectively they have become redundant. So the plight of refugees from before declaration of the State to the presesnt is still wide open to settlement in any manner.

According to international law all of these refugees have the Right of Return, it does not matter in what manner or for how long a period they have been absent. Israeli laws that state otherwise are invalid under international law/conventions. Israel is only able to get away with breaking of such laws because it does not "register" with the International Criminal Court. And the UN is sabotaged from passing meaning resolutions because of USA veto.

So the point I am getting at is, do you want to perpuatate forever this grave injustice these people have suffered for already about 70 years. Yes it is decades as you mention and that is a reason for remedying the problem and not perpuating it. Many of these refugees ended up in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip plus everywhere including surrounding countries where they still live in camps.

Who has the right to further take away these people's rights that are recognised in international law, i.e., the Right of Return. That was one of the major reasons why Arafat could not sign that last peace treaty attempt, fancy the Zionists expecting him to sign away his people's human rights. Who do these non-Middle-Eastern people think they are???


The problems that are now decades old were foreseen by liberal and anti-Zionist Jews decades before the Jewish State was declared, and they fought very hard and consistently against such State for this very reason. They are still fighting now in defending Palestinians living in Israel and outside from further stealing/confiscation of their land.

And here is the rub (as Igor previously agreed with me) - if Israel does not have the right to drive Palestinian off their land outside of "'recognised" borders because it is recognised as ''Palestinian'' land then they also did not have the right to drive them out of Israel 70 years ago. So the whole of Israel is illegal and immoral.



Jewish anti-Zionists when confronted with the Nazi extermination pleaded and fought for a bi-national approach with a Jewish minority only, as they recgnised the human rights violations on Palestinians and all the other implications of declaring a Jewish State.

Of course over the decades many or most Israeli Jews have demonstrated they do not deserve to be considered for nor fit to share the Palestinian homeland under bi-nationalism due to their 70 years of abuse of Palestinians - like asking Israel to share their homeland with the Nazis!!

I will answer further points from above a bit later, tomorrow at latest.

antichrist
29-03-2013, 08:04 PM
...............

This is a ridiculous analogy since same-sex marriage is a simple matter of basic human freedom and equal rights, the granting of which harms nobody. It is not at all comparable to what I believe you support in the case of I-P - ie a solution that would damage the human rights of Israelis in attempting to rectify supposed human wrongs that rest on arguments about ancient history and that occurred many decades ago.


As KB supports Israel's right to Palestine and their only authority is based on Old Testament well to be consistent KB should also support the Old Testament authority to kill homosexuals.

antichrist
30-03-2013, 10:25 PM
In fact, Obama went further in the case of Israel. He said in his speech of March 21: “while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea.” Many apparently free but—-as our president has now judged—-actually not truly free American Jews will wonder what could have been in his mind when he committed himself to this straightforward endorsement of the Zionist idea. Can we imagine the president of the secular United States saying anything comparable about an Islamic nation? Pragmatic considerations aside, what prevents him from saying that “Shiite Islam found extraordinary success in many parts of the world but its dream of national realization has attained its full expression in Iran”?

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/03/nation...gn-israel.html

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2013, 11:32 PM
As KB supports Israel's right to Palestine and their only authority is based on Old Testament well to be consistent KB should also support the Old Testament authority to kill homosexuals.

Both of your premises are false. I do not support "Israel's" right to all of "Palestine" nor do I even necessarily assert that Israel has a right to anything beyond existing somewhere (a right you appear not to believe in). I do however assert that a two-state solution with Israel occupying part of what is currently Israel/Palestine is the only way a peaceful solution is even remotely likely whatever might be said about the rights/wrongs of it by moralisers such as yourself and your fellow slaves to what is essentially Christian morality.

I suspect that even if your premises were true your argument would still collapse in a screaming heap on the grounds that the forms of authority being spoken of are not the same, but I can't be bothered checking that bit as it is irrelevant.

antichrist
31-03-2013, 07:47 AM
Both of your premises are false. I do not support "Israel's" right to all of "Palestine" nor do I even necessarily assert that Israel has a right to anything beyond existing somewhere (a right you appear not to believe in). I do however assert that a two-state solution with Israel occupying part of what is currently Israel/Palestine is the only way a peaceful solution is even remotely likely whatever might be said about the rights/wrongs of it by moralisers such as yourself and your fellow slaves to what is essentially Christian morality.

I suspect that even if your premises were true your argument would still collapse in a screaming heap on the grounds that the forms of authority being spoken of are not the same, but I can't be bothered checking that bit as it is irrelevant.

You completely ignored all the problems of the two state solution identified in my post 1289. That is the continual apartheid of maybe a million Palestinians in Israel proper and the Right of Return of millions of Palestinians now in refugee camps for past 60 years in some cases. Dozens of towns and villages have been bulldozed that were the homes of those millions of refugees. Well the Zionists have to get out of all those those now cities and give that land back to the Palestinians, and that goes for all Palestine, and that means all Israel. And they have to re-divert rivers back to Lebanon and wherever, meaning much of Israeli cities and industry and farming will cease and collapse.

Who is going to be the Adolf Hitler and Stalin of the UN and peace envoys and declare that those refugees have to give up to their legal Right of Return, recognised in international law.

Whilst Zionists illegally occupy those lands the Palestinians have the moral/legal rights to bomb those lands to retreive their homeland.

The Zionists -partly in collusion with Hitler and with rejection of Jewish refugees by USA and UK - created the problem of the Palestinian refugees, so it is these countries (USA & UK) to grant the Palestinians back their homeland. America and England rejected any significant number of Jewish refugees during the Holocaust, but were quite happy to inflict them on the Palestinians in the hundreds of thousands.

Palestinian leaders at the time were humanist and reasonable, willing to have the refugees as a significant minority in a then-termed bi-national state - but Zionists leaders wanted everything and took up terrorism very seriously - just like HItler in "Greater Germany" - to achieve their goals. As stated in post 1289 anti-Zionist Jews fought this all the way for decades even before the war. So the Zionists do not deserve the fruits of their terrorism at the continued suffering of the Palestinian refugees. It was not done in ignorance nor in an intellectual vacuum nor in desparaton - we are discussing at least at three decades before the war.

The setting up the United Nations and International Court of Justice etc was to establish international law, just and peaceful settlements of conficts etc. - but Israel has- since before even it's creation or recognition - used terrorism in Palestine and sabotaging of these new institutions (with American help) to demolish the Palestinian people - nothing short of a Hitler act.

The great bulk of Israelis are of European stock, since Europe has been so generous (via UN vote on creation of Jewish State) should also be generous with their own land and invite Zionists to take over parts of their own countries. But racist Europe, grappling with effects of GFC are now becoming nationalistic again (Hungary and Greece esp) and don't want Jews anywhere near them. But ethnicity should take precedence, and the UN should force European Jews back to Europe - or to the USA where the Jewish lobby control the government foreign policy anyway. (look how Hagel had to gravel to Zionists for acceptance as defense secretary - check youtube on it).

check this site, run by liberal fair-minded Jews, to see how they completely support the rights of Palestinians:http://mondoweiss.net/2013/03/nation...gn-israel.html

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2013, 11:46 AM
You completely ignored all the problems of the two state solution identified in my post 1289. That is the continual apartheid of maybe a million Palestinians in Israel proper and the Right of Return of millions of Palestinians now in refugee camps for past 60 years in some cases.

All this stuff about Right of Return from you is just blather. Right of Return means you get to go back to your home country, although in the case of the Jews you do not show any signs of believing they should have one.

Right of Return does not, whatever some pro-Palestinians may assert, mean you get a right to go wherever you like in Israel just because you think all of it is morally yours.

If there is a two-state solution then Right of Return means Israelis get to return to Israel and Palestinians get to return to Palestine, under the borders as determined by such a settlement.

antichrist
31-03-2013, 06:30 PM
All this stuff about Right of Return from you is just blather. Right of Return means you get to go back to your home country, although in the case of the Jews you do not show any signs of believing they should have one.

Right of Return does not, whatever some pro-Palestinians may assert, mean you get a right to go wherever you like in Israel just because you think all of it is morally yours.

If there is a two-state solution then Right of Return means Israelis get to return to Israel and Palestinians get to return to Palestine, under the borders as determined by such a settlement.

from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

UN General Assembly resolution 194

The issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees has been a very sensitive issue for Palestinians (and Arab countries in the region) since the creation of the refugee problem as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.[15] It is said that United Nations UN General Assembly Resolution 194 [4] which was passed on December 11, 1948 recognized the right for the first time. General Assembly resolutions are not binding on states.

Resolution 194 deals with the situation in the region of Palestine at the time, establishing and defining the role of the United Nations Conciliation Commission as an organization to facilitate peace in the region. Unlike Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, UN General Assembly Resolutions have only a recommendatory character.

Article 11 - Palestinian Refugees

The main Article of Resolution 194, for the purpose of this article, is Article 11 which deals with the return of refugees.

Article 11 of the resolution reads:
(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

A two state solution grants the perpentrators of shocking war crimes, terrorism etc possession to land that they have no moral, just or legal right to - unless you also believe that authorities have the right to deny homosexuals their rights.

will come back later to cover more points

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2013, 06:35 PM
Ambiguous and loaded with weasel-words. Who determines, and how, whether or not a refugee (or a populatiomn of refugees) wishes to live at peace with their neighbours? What is the earliest practical time? Too vague and therefore useless.

antichrist
31-03-2013, 10:15 PM
Ambiguous and loaded with weasel-words. Who determines, and how, whether or not a refugee (or a populatiomn of refugees) wishes to live at peace with their neighbours? What is the earliest practical time? Too vague and therefore useless.


All your supposed hesitations are of no significance at all. I will come back to later one by one.

Even Israel's Supreme Court has ordered right of return in some cases and these are refused by Israeli govt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_the_Exercise_of_the_Inalienable_Right s_of_the_Palestinian_People

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) article 13 states “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” From 1953 to 1973, the Palestinian Question was largely regarded as a refugee problem, until this seismic shift in legal discourse applied the inalienable right of return as a universal human right under article 13.[2]

antichrist
31-03-2013, 10:38 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte

Folke Bernadotte was assassinated by Jewish terrorist Stern Gang for saying the follow amongst other things, he was appointed by the UN to sort out the matter:

With respect to the refugee issue, Bernadotte said, "It is ... undeniable that no settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged by the hazards and strategy of the armed conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. The majority of these refugees have come from territory which ... was to be included in the Jewish State. The exodus of Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion. It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries."[26][27]

Redmond Barry
31-03-2013, 10:40 PM
a/c i have a proposal that i dont think you have considered yet.

what i suggest is that palestine give up all of their land.

just remember, according to my king james, luke 6:38 .....

"Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your lap. For with the same measure that you measure it shall be measured to you again."

although psalms 79:12 does mention that .........

"Pay back into the laps of our neighbors seven times the contempt they have hurled at you, Lord."

So maybe a perpetual state of conflict is the right thing after all.

hope that helps.

antichrist
31-03-2013, 10:45 PM
a/c i have a proposal that i dont think you have considered yet.

what i suggest is that palestine give up all of their land.

just remember, according to my king james, luke 6:38 .....

"Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your lap. For with the same measure that you measure it shall be measured to you again."

although psalms 79:12 does mention that .........

"Pay back into the laps of our neighbors seven times the contempt they have hurled at you, Lord."

So maybe a perpetual state of conflict is the right thing after all.

hope that helps.

well the book that comes from belongs to the Zionists so they should follow it if were true to their religion. But that conflicts with Joshua's longest day when the sun was put on increment time for the Zionists to get a mate

antichrist
31-03-2013, 11:40 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/30/us-palestinians-israel-protests-idUSBRE92T08V20130330

Palestinian Land Day is a protest day to bring attention to he robbery of their land by Zionists, since when has might become right

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2013, 11:51 AM
cxlO7DLC6p8#!

antichrist
07-04-2013, 12:07 PM
cxlO7DLC6p8#!

Jono, I think you are substantially in wrong thread with this one but who cares. You should consider his point about Muslims have to decide if they are a race or not, because exactly the same argument can be applied to Jews and Zionists. what is good for goose is good for the gander. If people criticise non-ethnic Jews, that is being religious Jews only, can it be racist? And therefore can it be anti-Semitic when the great majority could not even breath the Semitic language?

The Christian religion is just as dyfunctional as Islam, they both go through stages. When under crisis they react with fear and racism and aggression.

antichrist
11-04-2013, 05:20 PM
The great Uruguayan writer and journalist Eduardo Galeano says, "Palestinians have been damned to play the scapegoat for European anti-Semitism and to pay with their land and blood for the holocaust they did not commit."

antichrist
12-04-2013, 05:32 AM
How many times have we heard this biggest lie come from the Zionist apologists, even from Austarlians who should know better not believe Zionist propaganda.

Well after the 1982 Lebanese election won by Beshir Gemayel, the first congratulatory telegram come from Israel.

The Israeli foreign ministry issued the following statement: We are pleased that the Lebanese people have succeeded in electing a new president in democratic elections.

SO WARNING: DON'T BELIEVE ISRAEL PROPAGANDA EVEN WHEN SPREAD BY AUSTAIANS

antichrist
14-04-2013, 07:52 AM
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/53572Palestine: Hunger strikers vow to resist occupation

Monday, March 11, 2013
By Steven Katsineris

Protesters hold placards of Samer Issawi, a Palestinian political prisoner who readch 200 days on hunger strike on February 27.
Palestinian political prisoner and hunger striker Samer Issawi wrote in the Guardian on March 3: “Do not worry if my heart stops. I am still alive now and even after death, because Jerusalem runs through my veins. If I die, it is a victory; if we are liberated, it is a victory, because either way I have refused to surrender to the Israeli occupation, its tyranny and arrogance.”

As of January, according to Palestinian human rights groups, Israel held 4812 Palestinian prisoners in its jails.

Of these political prisoners, 1031 were being held until the conclusion of legal proceedings; 178 were in administrative detention, held indefinitely without trial or charge (in February at least a further 382 Palestinians were detained adding to this number); 166 were under the age of 18; 23 were children under 16; and six were women.

The remainder have been sentenced, in a harsh and unfair military system, with torture commonplace, almost complete lack of due process, vague charges, very low standards of evidence (or no evidence) presented and proceedings in Hebrew.

These political prisoners include 25 members of the Palestine National Council and the Speaker of the Parliament. Various writers, scholars, students and artists are also political prisoners.

Holding members of parliament is a violation of international law, and one of many laws Israel regularly breaks with impunity in its treatment of Palestinian political prisoners and the Palestinian people generally.

The conditions of their imprisonment are outrageous. Detainees are often held in solitary confinement for long periods, abused, tortured and denied proper health care.

No charge, no trial

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.”

The Israeli military has subjected Palestinians to administrative detention since the beginning of the Israeli occupation. Since 2000, Israel has issued 20,000 detention orders on Palestinians.

This is a system under which a military court can order suspects to be detained indefinitely, subject to renewal every six months by a court, without trial or charge. Israeli military law is sham justice. Palestinians are detained on the slightest excuse and held on false charges, on secret evidence unseen by lawyers or the accused, or on imprecise charges and no evidence.

Those re-arrested are often made to serve the remainder of their sentences or be sentenced on new charges.

Detained prisoners cannot dispute charges, cannot see alleged evidence against them and can be held for an indefinite period. This phony justice system depends on the whim of the Israeli military, denies due process because that’s the way the Israeli system operates, and abuses prisoners’ human rights and violates numerous international laws.

The Israeli military says it uses administrative detention to suppress any acts of resistance and dissent by Palestinians against the brutal Israeli occupation.

Hunger strikers fight for basic rights

Last year several Palestinian political prisoners went on hunger strike to protest their unfair detentions and mistreatment in Israeli jails. Issawi started his hunger strike in August and was joined by three other hunger strikers to protest the injustice of their administrative detention and that of other Palestinian political prisoners.

In December, he said: “My detention is unjust and illegal, just like the occupation is. My demands are legitimate and just. Thus I will not withdraw from the battle for freedom, waiting for either victory and freedom — or martyrdom.”

All the men initially took vitamins. Now, they drink only water and are refusing medical treatment and any food supplements.

Issawi, 33, is a political activist and member of resistance organisation the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. He organised numerous protests against the Israeli occupation. He was arrested by Israeli forces on April 15, 2002 in Ramallah. He was wrongly charged with planning military attacks on Israel. There was no evidence for the charges, but he was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Issawi was released in October 2011 as part of a prisoner exchange between Hamas and Israel. But he was re-arrested by the Israeli military for allegedly violating the terms of his release.

He was told to leave Jerusalem, but was arrested in the village Hizma, which is within the boundaries of the Jerusalem municipality. Israel’s claims were false and just an excuse to re-arrest Issawi. He has since been detained without charge. It is Israel that has broken the release agreement by re-arresting Issawi and other former political prisoners.

Issawi had been on hunger strike for 200 days on February 27 and was transferred to hospital. He was reported to be suffering various health problems and in a critical condition. He recently escalated his hunger strike and has stopped drinking water, and is resisting continuous pressure from the Israeli military to end the hunger strike.

Ayman Sharawna, 36, was also released in October 2011 as part of a prisoner exchange deal.

But Sharawna was re-arrested by the Israeli military authorities for allegedly violating the terms of his release. He has since been held in jail without charge or trial, on the basis of a “secret administrative file” that neither he nor his lawyer have seen. They have not been told the nature of the alleged breach.

The Israeli military have also threatened to cancel his early release. This means he could be made to serve the remaining 28 years of his original sentence.

Sharawna has been on hunger strike since July last year, except for a brief break in December, when he was told he would be released. He resumed the hunger strike in January after learning that the Israeli Prison Service had lied about their promise. Sharawna’s health has seriously deteriorated.

Tareq Qaadan and Jafar Ezzedine have been held in administrative detention on secret changes that even their lawyers havenot seen. Qaadan and Ezzedine have been on hunger strike since November, to protest their detention without charge and demanding their release.

They were both transferred to hospital after their health seriously deteriorated when they refused to drink water.

In February, eight more Palestinian hunger strikers joined the protests.

Campaign against inhumane actions

Last year, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination urged Israel to end the practice of administrative detention, saying it was discriminatory and constituted arbitrary detention, which is illegal under international law.

European Union spokesperson Catherine Ashton said on February 18: “Israel must adhere to international human rights obligations regarding hunger striking Palestinian prisoners.”

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, once again called on Israel to either charge administrative detainees and allow them a fair trial or release them immediately.

The hunger strikers have brought to the world’s attention the plight of the Palestinian prisoners held in administrative detention. Israel uses administrative detention to arrest and imprison Palestinians without cause, charges or trial and hold them indefinitely, many facing months or even years in prison.

The international community has a responsibility to condemn the continued practice of arbitrary administrative detention against Palestinians and compel Israel to comply with international humanitarian law and human rights laws in this regard and in other improper and illegal procedures used against Palestinian prisoners.

For far too long the US, Australia, Britain and other governments have turned a blind eye to the rogue state behaviour of Israel. It is overdue that the world community say they have had enough, and pressure governments to make Israel respect the human and civil rights of the Palestinian people.

The just cause of the Palestinian political prisoners requires immediate international exposure and support to improve their dire conditions. Many Palestinian political prisoners have been imprisoned illegally and deprived of their basic rights and liberties that are guaranteed by human rights and Geneva conventions and international law.

The Israeli occupation continually violates international law and conventions in its mistreatment of the Palestinian people. The international community must exert real pressure on Israel to end its blatant violations of human rights laws and stop the brutal abuses inflicted on Palestinian political prisoners.

The people of the world must let their respective governments know they have had enough of Israeli brutality and demand the UN, the EU and other world bodies stop their negligence of and complicity in Israeli crimes and take measures to force Israel to comply with international and human rights laws.

The world’s peoples and governments cannot allow Israel to continue to commit crimes with impunity, and have a moral responsibility to act.

Issawi said in his Guardian article: “My health has deteriorated greatly, but I will continue my hunger strike until victory or martyrdom. This is my last remaining stone to throw at the tyrants and jailers in the face of the racist occupation that humiliates our people.”

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2013, 10:10 AM
Israel celebrates 65th birthday as success, despite military threats, peace talks stalemate (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/14/israel-celebrates-65th-birthday-as-success-despite-military-threats-peace-talks/)
14 April 2013

antichrist
15-04-2013, 11:28 AM
Hey JOno, this reminds me of STalin and Hitlers military marching ceremonies on their anniversaries. The Palestinian land under Israel is no different to the Palestinian land outside of Israel - it is all Palestinian land, that the Zionists like HItler stole through might. And many liberal Israelis accept this robbery, they support Zionism but just not on other people's land.

Why should the Palestinians every accept the robbery of their land? Just because it says in a stupid religious book that God gave it to the Hebrews and the Hebrews have a God-permitted genocide to claim it. And they having been committing another genocide for past 70 years.

No wonder the world now is beginning to hate them.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Israel celebrates 65th birthday as success, despite military threats, peace talks stalemate
Published April 14, 2013
Associated Press
[skip excessive copy/paste-mod]

antichrist
15-04-2013, 01:40 PM
In 1954 Israeli recruited Egyptian Jews to plant bombs etc inside Egypt and to blame on Egyptian Muslims and Communists - no wonder the Arab countries expelled Jews
------------------------------------------------------------






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

Lavon Affair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pinhas Lavon
The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents" or "local nationalists" with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone.[2] The operation caused no casualties, except for those members of the cell who committed suicide after being captured.
The operation ultimately became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign as a consequence of the incident. Before Lavon's resignation, the incident had been euphemistically referred to in Israel as the "Unfortunate Affair" or "The Bad Business" (Hebrew: העסק הביש‎, HaEsek HaBish). After Israel publicly denied any involvement in the incident for 51 years, the surviving agents were officially honored in 2005 by being awarded certificates of appreciation by Israeli President Moshe Katzav.[3]
Contents [hide]
1 Operation Susannah
1.1 Aim
1.2 The secret cell
1.3 Operation commenced
2 Trials and jail
3 Political aftermath
3.1 Denial and first inquiry
3.2 Subsequent revelations and inquiries
3.3 Public debate
4 Legacy
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
[edit]Operation Susannah

[edit]Aim
In the early 1950s, the United States initiated a more activist policy of support for Egyptian nationalism; this was often in contrast with British policies of maintaining its regional hegemony. Israel feared that this policy, which encouraged Britain to withdraw its military forces from the Suez Canal, would embolden Egyptian President Nasser's military ambitions towards Israel. Israel first sought to influence this policy through diplomatic means but was frustrated.[4]
In the summer of 1954 Colonel Binyamin Gibli, the chief of Israel's military intelligence, Aman, initiated Operation Susannah in order to reverse that decision. The goal of the Operation was to carry out bombings and other acts of terrorism in Egypt with the aim of creating an atmosphere in which the British and American opponents of British withdrawal from Egypt would be able to gain the upper hand and block the British withdrawal from Egypt.
According to historian Shabtai Teveth, who wrote one of the more detailed accounts, the assignment was "To undermine Western confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime by generating public insecurity and actions to bring about arrests, demonstrations, and acts of revenge, while totally concealing the Israeli factor. The team was accordingly urged to avoid detection, so that suspicion would fall on the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, 'unspecified malcontents' or 'local nationalists'."[2]
[edit]The secret cell
The top-secret cell, Unit 131,[5] which was to carry out the operation, had existed since 1948 and under Aman since 1950. At the time of Operation Susannah, Unit 131 was the subject of a bitter dispute between Aman (military intelligence) and Mossad (national intelligence agency) over who should control it.
Unit 131 operatives had been recruited several years before, when the Israeli intelligence officer Avram Dar arrived in Cairo undercover as a British citizen of Gibraltar called John Darling. He had recruited several Egyptian Jews who had previously been active in illegal emigration activities and trained them for covert operations.
[edit]Operation commenced
Aman decided to activate the network in the Spring of 1954. On July 2, the cell firebombed a post office in Alexandria,[6] and on July 14, it bombed the libraries of the U.S. Information Agency in Alexandria and Cairo and a British-owned theater. The homemade bombs, consisting of bags containing acid placed over nitroglycerine, were inserted into books, and placed on the shelves of the libraries just before closing time. Several hours later, as the acid ate through the bags, the bombs would explode. They did little damage to the targets and caused no injuries or deaths.


Meir Max Bineth
Before the group began the operation, Israeli agent Avri Elad (Avraham Zeidenberg) was sent to oversee the operations. Elad assumed the identity of Paul Frank, a former SS officer with Nazi underground connections. Avri Elad allegedly informed the Egyptians, resulting in the Egyptian Intelligence Service following a suspect to his target, the Rio Theatre, where a fire engine was standing by. Egyptian authorities arrested this suspect, Philip Natanson, when his bomb accidentally ignited prematurely in his pocket. Having searched his apartment, they found incriminating evidence and names of accomplices to the operation.
Several suspects were arrested, including Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis. Colonel Dar and Elad had managed to escape. Two suspects, Yosef Carmon and Hungarian-born Israeli Meir Max Bineth committed suicide in prison.
[edit]Trials and jail

The Egyptian trial began on December 11 and lasted until January 27, 1955; two of the accused (Moshe Marzouk and Shmuel Azar) were condemned to execution by hanging, two were acquitted, and the rest received lengthy prison terms.
The trial was criticised in Israel as a show trial, although strict Israeli military censorship of the press, at the time, meant that the Israeli public was kept in the dark about the facts of the case and, in fact, were led to believe that the defendants were innocent.[7] There were allegations that evidence had been extracted by torture.[8]
After serving seven-year jail sentences, two of the imprisoned operatives (Meir Meyuhas and Meir Za'afran) were released in 1962. The rest were eventually freed in February 1968, in a secret addendum to a prisoner of war exchange.
Soon after the affair, Mossad chief Isser Harel expressed suspicion to Aman concerning the integrity of Avri Elad. Despite his concerns, Aman continued using Elad for intelligence operations until 1956, when he was caught trying to sell Israeli documents to the Egyptians. Elad was tried in Israel and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. During Elad's imprisonment in Ayalon Prison, the media were only able to refer to him as the "The Third Man" or "X" due to government censorship.[9] In 1976, whilst living in Los Angeles, Elad publicly identified himself as the "Third Man" from the Lavon Affair.[9] In 1980, Harel publicly revealed evidence that Elad had been turned by the Egyptians even before Operation Susannah.
[edit]Political aftermath

antichrist
15-04-2013, 01:43 PM
http://mideastweb.org/lavon.htm
..................................

The prisoners of the Lavon affair remained forgotten in Egyptian jails, and were not exchanged after the Sinai campaign. Since they were mostly Sephardi Jews, their cause became a cause celebre of those who claimed that Israel, and in particular the Mapai party, discriminated against Sephardi Jews.

The arrest of the ring resulted in an affair that dominated Israeli politics for over a decade. Israel was embarrassed, as it had been caught trying to harm American and British interests for no reason and in instigating terror attacks against innocent targets. The spies who were not executed were left to rot in Egyptian jails. Meanwhile, a wave of persecution forced the emigration of tens of thousands of Jews from Egypt, leaving behind property, memories and roots. Investigations in Israel led to a trail of forged documents and perjured testimony, as everyone involved tried to implicate others. To all of the above would be added the ignominy of betrayal, as it became evident eventually that Israeli agent Avri Seidenberg (Avri Elad) had probably betrayed the operation to the Egyptians.

The spy ring was not run by the Israeli Mossad intelligence service, but rather by unit 131 of AMAN (IDF intelligence). The rationale be

antichrist
15-04-2013, 01:47 PM
Is it the same today with the Ziegler affair, Israeli and their Australian Jewish sympathisers(dual citizens) are abusing and betraying Australian good name, good will and interests by using Australian passports for dangerous Israeli/Mossad secret service missions.

ER
15-04-2013, 02:50 PM
Israel celebrates 65th birthday as success, despite military threats, peace talks stalemate (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/14/israel-celebrates-65th-birthday-as-success-despite-military-threats-peace-talks/)
14 April 2013

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/Ben_Gurion_1959_zps530bd7b2.jpg (http://s1230.photobucket.com/user/jak_jak1/media/Ben_Gurion_1959_zps530bd7b2.jpg.html)

David Ben Gurion. The founder of Israel!
As cited in Wikipedia, posthumously, Ben-Gurion was named one of Time magazine's 100 Most Important People of the 20th century.

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2013, 09:48 PM
Moderation Notice

Please keep the length of copy-and-pasting down. Very long posts that are entirely copied and pasted will be deleted whether they breach copyright or not.

antichrist
21-04-2013, 10:35 AM
Israel did a thousand times worse than the Boston Bombing when it bombed Beirut - then it particiapted in the refugee camp massacres, killing thousands of defenseless Palestinian freedomfighters families, after the freedom fighters had left the country

antichrist
21-04-2013, 11:06 AM
Israel was created by terror and has been a terrorist country ever since - and Australa and America are quite responsible for such terrorism
------------------------------------------





Other consequences of Israeli Invasion of Lebanon

............................................
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden said in a videotape, released on the eve of the 2004 U.S. presidential elections, that he was inspired to attack the buildings of the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.[89]

[edit] Investigation into violation of International Law

See also: Sabra and Shatila massacre, section MacBride commission report

On 16 December 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.[90] The voting record[91][92][93] on section D of Resolution 37/123, which "resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide", was: yes: 123; no: 0; abstentions: 22; non-voting: 12. The abstentions were: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany (Federal Republic), Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, U.S., Canada, "]Australia[/COLOR], New Zealand, Israel, Côte d'Ivoire, Papua New Guinea, Barbados and Dominican Republic. Some delegates disputed the claim that the massacre constituted genocide.

In 1982, an international commission investigated into reported violations of International Law by Israel during its invasion of the Lebanon. Chairman was Seán MacBride, the other members were Richard Falk, Kader Asmal, Brian Bercusson, Géraud de la Pradelle, and Stefan Wild. The commission's report[94] concluded that "the government of Israel has committed acts of aggression contrary to international law", that the government of Israel had no valid reasons under international law for its invasion of Lebanon, and that the Israeli authorities or forces were directly or indirectly responsible for the massacres and killings, which have been reported to have been carried out by Lebanese militiamen in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in the Beirut area between 16 and 18 September.

antichrist
21-04-2013, 01:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair


Lavon Affair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pinhas Lavon
The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents" or "local nationalists" with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone.[2] The operation caused no casualties, except for those members of the cell who committed suicide after being captured.
The operation ultimately became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign as a consequence of the incident. Before Lavon's resignation, the incident had been euphemistically referred to in Israel as the "Unfortunate Affair" or "The Bad Business" (Hebrew: העסק הביש‎, HaEsek HaBish). After Israel publicly denied any involvement in the incident for 51 years, the surviving agents were officially honored in 2005 by being awarded certificates of appreciation by Israeli President Moshe Katzav.[3]

antichrist
21-04-2013, 07:39 PM
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, many of the survivors found shelter in displaced persons (DP) camps administered by the Allied powers. Between 1948 and 1951, almost 700,000 Jews emigrated to Israel, including 136,000 Jewish displaced persons from Europe
---------------------------------------------------

isn't it ironic how this 700,000 immigraton co-incided with the expulsion of a similar number of Palestinians from their homeland - but the world did not care about that, similar tactics to the Nazis were used

antichrist
30-04-2013, 08:06 PM
Of course WWII was a big part of the picture as it gave the UK stewardship of Palestine and thus provided an opportunity. However Zionism as a modern movement was popularised by Theodor Herzl who book Der Judenstaadt which encouraged a migration of Jews back to Palestine and that was published when Hitler was still in lederhosen.

The author of the chess story The Royal Game (Stefan Zweig) - also an Austrian Jew and contemporary of Herzl - makes an insightful point on the impact of Der Judenstaadt in his autobiography, particularly when he describes Herzl's funeral which was widely attended by non-Viennese mourners who had to travel large distances to be there.

but amazing what also came out of all this is the Hebrew University - the philosophical soul of Israel. Staffed by Jewish liberals and anti-Zionists, yes it has been sort of run off the road by history the whole lot, but it has steadly eaten at the heart of the conscious. Since all the dysfunctionalism of the wars, occupations and invasions by Israel, and lack of peaceful living and peace settlements have left Isreal nothing to rely on except violence and scheming. But this has never achieved them peace. Their society is greatly divided by religious and robbery fanatics and peace and justice seekers.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 04:08 AM
Hawking's Moral Calculus (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/18102)
By Mona Charen · May 10, 2013

Stephen Hawking, the world-renowned physicist and celebrity, has cancelled a planned trip to Israel to participate in a conference sponsored by Israeli President Shimon Peres. His explanation: "I have received a number of emails from Palestinian academics. They are unanimous that I should respect the boycott. In view of this, I must withdraw from the conference."

It's an odd world isn't it? By what inverted moral calculus does someone of Hawking's stature find it morally problematic to set foot on the soil of the region's only democracy? One wonders how many other nations has Hawking declined to visit in order to express his disapproval of their policies?

A glance at his CV reveals that Hawking visited the Soviet Union in 1973. Russia is no human rights picnic today (it is one of two chief sponsors of the Assad regime in Syria, for example), but those were the bad old days of Brezhnev, when uprisings for freedom in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were ruthlessly suppressed, the KGB inspired terror and scientists who displeased the regime were packed off to the Gulag.

The incredibly well traveled Hawking also visited Iran in 2007 for the International Physics Olympiad. His conscience was apparently untroubled by the stoning of adulteresses, imprisonment without trial, torture and the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities -- to say nothing of arming terrorists and threatening to wipe countries off the map.

There is, alas, no shortage of nations in this world richly deserving of boycotts and other forms of pressure. Atrocities against civilians, including children, are a daily occurrence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. China, Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, Mali, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, as well as the above-mentioned Russia and Iran and many others oppress their populations, flout human rights, disdain judicial procedures and muzzle the press.

Yet there is no worldwide BDS ("Boycott, Divest, Sanction") movement against any of those countries. Some have been sanctioned by the United Nations, or in the case of Cuba, boycotted by the United States. But only Israel is singled out for the BDS treatment by private organizations and individuals. Hawking joins entertainers Elvis Costello, Santana, Jon Bon Jovi and the Pixies, in declining to travel to Israel. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has started the process of divesting from Israel, joining the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the United Church of Canada, the Church of England Synod, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the World Council of Churches. Bishop Desmund Tutu has called for Israel to be treated just as apartheid South Africa was -- a call that Jimmy Carter has come close to echoing.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2013, 12:43 PM
EGYPT: 20,000 BLOODTHIRSTY MUSLIMS CHANTING ‘ALLAHU AKBAR’ ATTACK CHRISTIAN CHURCH (http://patdollard.com/2013/05/egypt-20000-bloodthirsty-muslims-chanting-allahu-akbar-attack-christian-church/)
May 19, 2013

The escalation of Muslim attacks on Christian churches in Egypt continues unabated. This week two attacks were carried out, one in Alexandria and one in Menbal in Upper Egypt — both allegedly prompted by harassment of Muslim women. Yesterday the church of St. Mary, in the Dakhela district, west of Alexandria, was attacked by Molotov cocktails and bricks, causing the gate to burn and the breaking of most of the stained glass windows. One Copt was killed and several injured.

According to the official police explanation, the Copt Basem Ramzy Michael was seen by the Muslim Hamada Alloshy, a registered criminal, allegedly extending his body from his balcony to gaze at the flat of Alloshy’s sister, who lives on the ground floor. A quarrel broke out and when the church was attacked, hundreds of Copts hurried to the area to defend the church, among whom was 36-year-old Sedky Sherif, a father of three children. According to his nephew Rabah, who was with him at the time of his death, 1000 Copts were present and were attacked by over 20,000 Muslims, who were firing bird shots at them and throwing bricks. While the church was being attacked the Muslims were shouting “Allahu Akbar.” Security forces were sent out to diffuse the situation and disperse the crowd. They made several arrests on both sides.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2013, 02:49 PM
UPDATE on the Muslim savages rioting in Sweden (http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/05/21/update-on-the-muslim-savages-rioting-in-sweden/)
In the area of Husby in Stockholm Sweden, About 200 armed Muslims carried out a well-planned riot that burned hundreds of cars and buildings. The main group behind the riots, Megafonen, received City funding as a ‘youth activist group.’ Turns out the “youths” consisted of revolutionary Muslim activists whose goal was to destroy the area they live in (no doubt living on government welfare benefits).

Rincewind
24-05-2013, 03:03 PM
In the area of Husby in Stockholm Sweden, About 200 armed Muslims carried out a well-planned riot that burned hundreds of cars and buildings. The main group behind the riots, Megafonen, received City funding as a ‘youth activist group.’ Turns out the “youths” consisted of revolutionary Muslim activists whose goal was to destroy the area they live in (no doubt living on government welfare benefits).

Batshit crazy website and reporting of rioting around Stockholm which is actually fueled by massive youth unemployment and triggered by the police shooting a man of Portuguese background in his home.

Adamski
25-05-2013, 11:56 PM
Here is a nice story from this region of the world:

ISRAELI DOCTOR RISKS LIFE FOR PALESTINIAN STONE-THROWER

A recent eruption of violence in Judea and Samaria was riddled with the usual accusations of Israeli brutality toward the Palestinians. But one story being touted in the Hebrew press demonstrates that Israel has no such lust for violence, and in general adheres rather well to Yeshua's admonition to "love thy enemy." According to the story, at the height of the violence, an Israeli doctor quietly entered the Palestinian-ruled Biblical city of Shechem (today known as Nablus) without an army escort in order to save the life of a young Palestinian man who had been badly injured in a clash with Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers.

It mattered not that the young man had sought out violence with the Israelis, and any trepidation over entering Shechem without escort was suppressed. All Dr. Micah Shamir knew was that this Palestinian man would die without the kind of treatment Israel can provide. Dr. Shamir, a senior physician at Jerusalem's Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital, told the Ma'ariv daily newspaper about the harrowing experience: "It was clear we needed to save this young man. But entering Shechem was not pleasant, and there were moments of real fear."

Dr. Shamir and his colleagues were made aware of the young man's condition when Palestinian doctors at a Shechem hospital unequipped to save his life reached out for help. "I didn't think twice," said Dr. Shamir. While the rescue operation was sanctioned by the Palestinian mayor of Shechem, had any of the local terror groups decided to attack or abduct the Israeli doctor, they could have easily done so. "It was extremely dangerous," Dr. Shamir recalled. Ultimately, the mission was a success, and the young Palestinian man was secreted out of Shechem and transferred to a hospital in Jerusalem where he is recovering in stable condition.

Many Israelis were angered by the story, not because of what Dr. Shamir did for this Palestinian man, but because Israel typically shies away from taking such action on behalf of its own. Shechem was the setting for a similar situation in October of 2000, when a Palestinian mob stormed the Jewish holy site of Joseph's Tomb and violently assaulted the Israeli soldiers stationed there. As the Israelis pulled back, Cpl. Madhat Yusuf, 19, sustained serious gunshot wounds. Fearing that an incursion back into Shechem to rescue Yusuf would result in a major and bloody gun battle and subsequent international condemnation, the young Druze soldier was left to bleed to death.


Source: Israel Today

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 07:28 PM
Mission Statement (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349340/mission-statement)
By Mark Steyn
May 25, 2013

For the last week, Stockholm has been lit up by what the great Australian wag Tim Blair calls the nightly car-b-q, started by “youths” after the police shooting of (you’ll never guess!) a Muslim man waving a machete. …

But while the Stockholm riots keep spreading and intensifying, Swedish police have adopted a tactic of non-interference. ”Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving explained to the Swedish newspaper Expressen on Tuesday.


Chief Löfving’s media relations officer, Lars Byström, elaborates:

We go to the crime scenes, but when we get there we stand and wait.

That’s not strictly true. They are handing out parking tickets to the burnt-out cars. Seriously.

Meanwhile, in Britain, the constabulary of a nation where men are hacked to death on the street in broad daylight are arresting Tweeters who Tweet insufficiently culturally sensitive Tweets about the unfortunate incident – and sending three coppers to warn an 86-year old lady that the cheese wheel she makes for the annual cheese-rolling competition is a threat to public safety.

This is how it’ll go. As western governments lose their ability to impact anything that matters, they’ll become ever more coercive about all the little stuff. Heaven help the first granny who takes down a machete-wielding jihadist with an oversized cheese wheel.

Rincewind
26-05-2013, 10:26 PM
the police shooting of (you’ll never guess!) a Muslim man waving a machete. …

You'll never guess because it isn't true.

Ian Murray
26-05-2013, 10:55 PM
You'll never guess because it isn't true.
Truth from Scandinavia seems to get lost in translation quite a bit. I am reminded of the report, emanating from a Christian source in Iran (of all places) and carried stridently by the batshit blogosphere, of a convert from Islam in a Norwegian detention centre burnt with acid for his apostasy. There was no mention of any such incident in any other source.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 11:44 PM
Truth from Scandinavia seems to get lost in translation quite a bit. I am reminded of the report, emanating from a Christian source in Iran (of all places) and carried stridently by the batshit blogosphere, of a convert from Islam in a Norwegian detention centre burnt with acid for his apostasy. There was no mention of any such incident in any other source.
Which part are you denying of the claims at issue? That there were burnt cars? That Moslems burned them? That the dhimmitudinous Polizei did nothing to stop them? or:

Parking Tickets Issued on Wrecks while Stockholm Burns (http://www.friatider.se/parking-tickets-issued-on-wrecks-while-stockholm-burns):


Since last Sunday, May 19, rioters have taken to the streets of Stockholm’s suburbs every night, torching cars, schools, stores, office buildings and residential complexes. Yesterday, a police station in Rågsved, a suburb four kilometers south of Stockholm, was attacked and set on fire.
But while the Stockholm riots keep spreading and intensifying, Swedish police have adopted a tactic of non-interference. ”Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving explained to the Swedish newspaper Expressen on Tuesday.
”We go to the crime scenes, but when we get there we stand and wait,” elaborated Lars Byström, the media relations officer of the Stockholm Police Department. ”If we see a burning car, we let it burn if there is no risk of the fire spreading to other cars or buildings nearby. By doing so we minimize the risk of having rocks thrown at us.”
Swedish parking laws, however, continue to be rigidly enforced despite the increasingly chaotic situation. Early Wednesday, while documenting the destruction after a night of rioting in the Stockholm suburb of Alby, a reporter from Fria Tider observed a parking enforcement officer writing a ticket for a burnt-out Ford.
When questioned, the officer explained that the ticket was issued because the vehicle lacked a tag showing its time of arrival. The fact that the vehicle had been effectively destroyed – its windshield smashed and the interior heavily damaged by fire – was irrelevant according to the meter maid, who asked Fria Tider’s photographer to destroy the photos he had taken. Her employer, the parking company P-service, refused to comment when Fria Tider contacted them on Wednesday afternoon.

Rincewind
27-05-2013, 01:40 AM
Which part are you denying of the claims at issue?

I thought my post made it pretty obvious.


the police shooting of (you’ll never guess!) a Muslim man waving a machete. …

Simply not true. The man the police shot wasn't a Muslim and probably wasn't waving a machete.

Ian Murray
27-05-2013, 09:48 AM
Which part are you denying of the claims at issue? That there were burnt cars? That Moslems burned them? That the dhimmitudinous Polizei did nothing to stop them? or Parking Tickets Issued on Wrecks while Stockholm Burns
You and your ilk seem to have trouble deciding what to support and what to condemn. Earlier this month you were lambasting the French police for dispersing rioters with tear gas, now it's the Swedish police for not dispersing rioters.

I agree that those parking tickets should not have been issued by the private parking company involved. The public is better served by keeping private enterprise out of law enforcement.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2013, 03:04 AM
You and your ilk seem to have trouble deciding what to support and what to condemn. Earlier this month you were lambasting the French police for dispersing rioters with tear gas, now it's the Swedish police for not dispersing rioters.
This is silly. The Swedish incident involved mob violence, so force was warranted.


I agree that those parking tickets should not have been issued by the private parking company involved. The public is better served by keeping private enterprise out of law enforcement.
I agree actually. But the point I was making was the crassness of ticketing burned cars.

Ian Murray
28-05-2013, 07:12 PM
This is silly. The Swedish incident involved mob violence, so force was warranted..
So did the French - by definition a riot involves mob violence

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2013, 01:14 PM
West Isn't Killing Muslims, But Muslims Are Killing Christians (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/052913-658030-west-is-not-slaughtering-muslims-despite-claims.htm)
By DENNIS PRAGER, 29 May 2013

Here's a question for Muslims and leftists who buy this argument about the West killing Muslims in Afghanistan: Who are we fighting in Afghanistan?
Which Will It Be?
I thought the Brits and Americans were fighting the Taliban, the people who throw acid in Muslim girls' faces for attending school, the people who murder nurses who inoculate Muslim children against disease.
Now, if fighting the Taliban is to be equated with fighting Muslims, this is a real contradiction of everything much of the Islamic world and virtually all of the left have been contending for years — that the Taliban represent a tiny group of extremists in the Muslim world, and that they have so completely perverted Islam that they cannot even be called Muslims.
Well, you can't have it both ways.
If killing the Taliban is the same as "killing Muslims," then you can't argue that the Taliban don't represent Islam or Muslims.
...
It is Christians who are being murdered, and whose communities are being decimated, in the Muslim world.
Christians have lived in the Middle East — in places such as Iraq and Egypt — since long before Muhammad was born.
It is Christians in Nigeria who are routinely slaughtered by Muslims. And it is Christians in Pakistan who are burned alive in their churches.
And what about the 52 Brits blown up by Muslim terrorists in the U.K. on July 7, 2005? How is it that not one Brit decided to take an eye for an eye against any Muslim?
In the real world — as opposed to the fantasy worlds the Organization of Islamic States and your local university are operating in — it is Christians who are being killed by Muslims, not Muslims who are being killed by Christians.

Rincewind
31-05-2013, 02:36 PM
Funny story about IBD idiotorials.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/how_stehpen_hawking_proves_tha.html

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2013, 03:27 PM
Prager of course ignores the collateral killings of non-Taliban Muslims in the process of war against the Taliban, since noticing them would demolish his argument.

Damodevo
01-06-2013, 12:35 AM
Prager of course ignores the collateral killings of non-Taliban Muslims in the process of war against the Taliban, since noticing them would demolish his argument.

Don't be ridiculous. It doesn't 'demolish his argument' one bit. *every* war has collateral damage and killing Talibaners, even if it results in some killing of civilians, is still on net better for the moderate Muslims that would otherwise suffer their tyranny.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2013, 01:20 AM
Don't be ridiculous. It doesn't 'demolish his argument' one bit. *every* war has collateral damage and killing Talibaners, even if it results in some killing of civilians, is still on net better for the moderate Muslims that would otherwise suffer their tyranny.

His argument is that there is a contradiction between asserting that Westerners are killing "mainstream" Muslims in Afghanistan and asserting that the Taliban are not mainstream Muslims.

That works if Westerners are only killing Taliban. It does not work, as a matter of fact, if Westerners are killing "mainstream" Muslims as well as Taliban - irrespective of whether or not it is better for mainstream Muslims on the whole that this occurs.

(Though for what it's worth, Afghan Muslims would very likely prefer the US just gave them a big stash of weapons and got the hell out.)

The collateral killing of "mainstream" Muslims is used by the Taliban and other extremists to justify their killing of Westerners and to radicalise impressionable young Muslims into doing so. Whether or not the collateral killings were justified or even helpful to mainstream Muslim has nothing to do with that. In this sense the idea that killing some Muslims results in other Muslims attempting to kill Westerners is true. (Never mind that far more civilians are actually killed by insurgents.)

As for the question of whether killing Taliban is helpful to mainstream Muslims, the problem is that you can kill them and kill them, they just radicalise more and keep coming back. Afghanistan does not show a lot of signs of being winnable.

Given that your own ability to think through these kind of mild complexities is at best no better than Prager's (and he was probably being deliberately shallow), for you to call what I'm saying "ridiculous" carries all the gravitas of being menaced by a chihuahua puppy masquerading as a guard dog.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2013, 01:43 AM
That works if Westerners are only killing Taliban. It does not work, as a matter of fact, if Westerners are killing "mainstream" Muslims as well as Taliban - irrespective of whether or not it is better for mainstream Muslims on the whole that this occurs.
Who is making that argument? There is certainly no intent to kill any Muslims who are not violent


The collateral killing of "mainstream" Muslims is used by the Taliban and other extremists to justify their killing of Westerners and to radicalise impressionable young Muslims into doing so. Whether or not the collateral killings were justified or even helpful to mainstream Muslim has nothing to do with that. In this sense the idea that killing some Muslims results in other Muslims attempting to kill Westerners is true. (Never mind that far more civilians are actually killed by insurgents.)
Yes indeed. This reinforces Prager's point about the dishonesty of those he was addressing. The lack of protests by the allegedly peaceful Muslim majority doesn't help their credibility.


As for the question of whether killing Taliban is helpful to mainstream Muslims, the problem is that you can kill them and kill them, they just radicalise more and keep coming back. Afghanistan does not show a lot of signs of being winnable.
Ah yes, the old fallacy of the unlimited enemy, as Sowell puts it (http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2004/11/19/the_unlimited_enemy/page/full/) (2004), as an excuse to let Islamofascists literally get away with murder.


At least as far back as the 1930s, the intelligentsia and others have warned against military spending as setting off an "arms race" in which each side escalates its military buildup in response to the other, making the whole thing an expensive exercise in futility. The same notion was repeated throughout the long years of the Cold War.

Today's version is that, no matter how many Middle East terrorists we kill, new ones will take their place and we will have nothing to show for all our efforts and sacrifices. People who talk this way are completely undaunted by the fact that Ronald Reagan proved them wrong during the Cold War.

President Reagan understood that the Soviets did not have unlimited resources -- and in fact their resources were far more limited than ours. Going directly counter to those who wanted a "nuclear freeze" or other weapons limitations agreements, Ronald Reagan began a military buildup that kept upping the ante until the Soviets had to throw in their hand, ending the Cold War.

When Reagan ordered a bombing of Libya in retaliation for Libyan terrorism, the immortal fallacy was immediately voiced by former President Jimmy Carter, who declared that this would only make matters worse and bring on more terrorism. But Libya toned down its terrorist activities.

Years later, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown in Iraq and was then dragged out of his hiding hole, Libyan dictator Kaddafi decided to end his nuclear program and cooperate with monitors. Unlike Jimmy Carter, he knew that he did not have unlimited resources.

Those who argue today that virtually every military action we take only arouses "the Arab street" against us and provokes a new stream of terrorist recruits fail to understand that international terrorism requires more than new recruits. It requires huge amounts of money, sophisticated leaders and an intricate structure of command.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2013, 01:45 AM
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CALLS FOR THE ‘HUMAN RIGHTS’ OF JIHADIS (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/31/obama-administration-calls-for-the-human-rights-of-jihadis/)
Raymond Ibrahim
31 May 2013

Thus here is Kerry grandstanding about the “human rights” of Boko Haram, a jihadi group whose name means “Western Education is a Sin” — that is, a group whose very name embodies hostility for Western civilization. (Of course, it’s not surprising that the Obama administration overlooks Boko Haram’s animus for the West, considering that it was just revealed that “it is Obama administration policy to consider specifically Islamic criticism of the American system of government legitimate.”)

But what about the “human rights” of the victims of jihadi terror? In 2011, when Egypt’s Christians protested the constant attacks on their churches and the Egyptian military responded by massacring them at Maspero, including by running them over with armored vehicles, the White House then said nothing about “human rights,” declaring instead that “now is a time for restraint on all sides” — as if Egypt’s beleaguered and unarmed Christian minority needed to “restrain” itself against the nation’s military.

As for Nigeria’s Boko Haram, the group has been responsible for some of the most horrific human-rights abuses. Indeed, of all the human rights abuses I catalog in my new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621570258/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1621570258&linkCode=as2&tag=pjmedia-20), Boko Haram’s relentless slaughter of Christians is the most savage, resulting in more Christians killed than in the rest of the world combined.
...
Postscript: Following Kerry’s call to protect the “human rights” of Nigeria’s jihadi terrorists, Obama himself has just urged Myanmar to “halt violence against Muslims” and “move ahead with economic and political reforms” — all while omitting the fact that the government’s offensive is in response to violent, separatist Muslims, whose jihad has nothing to do with “economic and political reforms,” only the subjugation of infidels.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2013, 02:21 AM
Who is making that argument? There is certainly no intent to kill any Muslims who are not violent

Intent is not relevant. What is relevant to the demolition of Prager's nonsense is that his argument falsely assumes that when Westerners attempt to kill Taliban they kill only Taliban.


Yes indeed. This reinforces Prager's point about the dishonesty of those he was addressing.

That depends on which portion of those he was addressing you mean. If you mean the Westerners who make the argument in question, there is no dishonesty; it's just a fact that Western collateral killings are used as propaganda to radicalise more nutters who then seek to kill Westerners.

If you mean the militant Islamists who use the Western collateral killings in this way, that depends on whether they're the brainwashers or the brainwashees.


Ah yes, the old fallacy of the unlimited enemy, as Sowell puts it (http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2004/11/19/the_unlimited_enemy/page/full/) (2004), as an excuse to let Islamofascists literally get away with murder.

I'm not suggesting letting militant Islamists get away with anything; I'm suggesting looking at what works and what doesn't. It may for instance be that arming local resistance works better than getting involved on the ground as a foreign power.


Today's version is that, no matter how many Middle East terrorists we kill, new ones will take their place and we will have nothing to show for all our efforts and sacrifices. People who talk this way are completely undaunted by the fact that Ronald Reagan proved them wrong during the Cold War.

This is a feeble argument because the situations are so different. The Soviet side of the arms race collapsed primarily on a point of economics. Nuclear weapons are enormously expensive, but radicalising propaganda is very cheap.


When Reagan ordered a bombing of Libya in retaliation for Libyan terrorism, the immortal fallacy was immediately voiced by former President Jimmy Carter, who declared that this would only make matters worse and bring on more terrorism. But Libya toned down its terrorist activities.

Ah yes. It desisted from killing three people in discos and stuck to smaller targets like Pan Am jetliners after that. :rolleyes:


Those who argue today that virtually every military action we take only arouses "the Arab street" against us and provokes a new stream of terrorist recruits fail to understand that international terrorism requires more than new recruits.

Sowell is wrong here because it is possible to consistently argue both (i) that military action causes many militant Islamists to want to kill Westerners and (ii) that those attempts by militant Islamists are currently not particularly effective.

Of course there are many who would argue that military action in Islamic countries is a bad idea for specifically reason (i) but I did not argue that and nor did Prager limit his attempted refutation to that position. Rather he attempted to deny a broader matter of fact, " that America, the U.K. and other countries are targeted by Muslims because we kill Muslims."

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 02:24 AM
University introduces "blasphemy law" for fear of Muslim violence (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3669/university_introduces_blasphemy_law_for_fear_of_mu slim_violence)
The Australian National University has banned the satirisation of Islam after a student newspaper published a Quranic passage as a "rape fantasy"
by The Commentator on 31 May 2013

The Australian National University (ANU) has apparently banned the satirisation of Islam for fear of inciting violence and creating a backlash.

The Australian newspaper reported (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/uni-bans-koran-satire-for-fear-of-violent-backlash/story-e6frgcjx-1226650955420) this week that the ANU cited international violence in the wake of the Danish cartoons and Innocence of Muslims film to justify its decision to force student newspaper Woroni to pulp a satirical infographic which described a passage from the Qu'ran as a "rape fantasy".

The university also reportedly threatened student authors and editors of the infographic with disciplinary action, including academic exclusion and the withdrawal of the publication's funding. Critics have argued that the university is effectively introducing a "blasphemy law" seeking to protect Islam from criticism.

The piece was the fifth in a satirical series entitled "Advice from Religion" which had previously discussed Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism and Judaism - none of which drew complaint or university action.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2013, 02:51 AM
Disappointing decision really and the sort of conflict of interest problem that happens when a university funds a student newspaper.

The student paper I edited had no uni funding and was independent of the Uni. We'd just fight with the Uni whenever we felt like it because they couldn't do anything about it, short of sending people around to throw our magazine in the bin. I rejected an article submitted by the Vice-Chancellor for containing too much incomprehensible jargon, and sent it back to be rewritten in English. When someone in student services published an ad in another newsletter saying that results of a survey they were doing would be published in our mag, I ran a comment publicly saying that they hadn't consulted with us about it and we would decide who was published in our magazine, not them. (They were pretty annoyed about it but they were presuming outside their station and should have consulted first.)

I'd like to see this: if the article offended any Islamists enough to cause them to react violently, then the Uni should punish the Islamists by doubling the paper's funding.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 02:21 PM
Atheist Pat Condell talks sense on the Woolwich murder and Muslim apologists.


Oz267A6jhbw

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2013, 01:21 PM
WAHHHHLEED: IT’S NOT FAIR! (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/its_not_fair/)
Tim Blair
Friday, May 31, 2013

According to Waleed Aly, terrorism is an “irritant” that “kills relatively few people”. We should be “mature” in dealing with it. But Aly is angry about drones:

The central problem is drones permit a kind of no-risk, low-cost warfare.
As opposed to high-risk, massive-cost warfare. Bring back the glory days of World War I.

War is a kind of contract. Each side confronts the other, with the risk of death and defeat.
Andrew Bolt replies: “There is no contract of the kind you imagine. The contract a society has is actually with its citizens, not its enemies. That contract is to fight for the society’s self-protection using whatever means it has to minimise its own losses and maximise those of its foes.” Quite so. Aly continues:

In short, war should come at a cost.
Yes. To the other guy.

That contract is shredded when you’re attacked by something that cannot itself be killed.
You can’t kill a suicide bomber once he or she has already detonated, pal. Besides being “irritants”, they’re also in breach of Aly’s contractual code. …

Desmond
08-06-2013, 03:04 PM
Language warning ... err probably not work safe.

8NeqZOce1fE

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2013, 12:42 AM
CITIZENS PROTEST US ATTORNEY'S ATTEMPT TO CURB FREE SPEECH (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/05/US-Attorney-s-Attempts-to-Intimidate-Free-Speech-at-Muslim-Event-in-Tennessee-Not-Well-Received?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
by MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY 6 Jun 2013

Killian sparked the controversy and drew charges that he was attempting to deny free speech First Amendment rights to any Americans who spoke critically of Muslims in a May 21 interview with the Tullahoma News. In the interview, Killian described why he had asked that the June 4 Manchester event be held. "This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion."

Killian then took a sharp turn away from the purported "educational" purpose for the event, and issued a veiled threat to Muslim critics."This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are." (emphasis added)

Killian also provided fodder to those who see him as a Muslim apologist and Christian antagonist by attempting to create a false moral equivalency between the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings and the innumerable jihad inspired Muslim terrorist attacks. "Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both Christians as was the guy who shot up the Sikh temple. Sikhs are not Muslim. Many people think they are Muslim, but they split off with the Hindu religion."

Timothy McVeigh was an atheist, and unlike Muslim acts of terrorism, the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombings and the Sikh temple attacks did not claim that their actions were an expression of any religious belief.

Capablanca-Fan
12-06-2013, 09:26 AM
This pic actually vastly understates the difference. When relative land areas and populations are considered, the difference is even starker.
See also Why Some Arabs Extol Israel’s Virtues (http://www.charismanews.com/world/39773-why-some-arabs-extol-israel-s-virtues)

Yes, there are 1.5 million Israeli Arabs in our nation. They are not Palestinians.

What is different about these Arabs is they possess all the rights and privileges as Israeli Jews, similar to the rights that most Western countries enjoy. Unlike in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, they have freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to travel. Just about the only thing that an Israeli Arab can’t do that Israeli Jews can, is serve in the Israeli Defense Forces—and some of them do that (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5727).

An Arab living in Haifa can go to the center of the city, hold a sign that says he thinks Prime Minister Netanyahu is stupid and then go home and enjoy his family. No one will arrest him. Ask the same Arab to move to Saudi Arabia and hold up a sign saying, “King Abdullah has the brains of a camel.” He wouldn’t last 10 minutes.

Furthermore, Israeli Arab women can drive (unlike in Saudi Arabia). No one tell them what they can wear, but in many countries, women would be physically beaten by religious police for leaving the house in a T-shirt and jeans.

John777
12-06-2013, 08:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uIEeiDjdUuU

In an effort to bring peace to the Middle East, President Barack Obama has proposed that Israel should return to its 1967 borders in exchange for being annihilated by its enemies. PJTV's Andrew Klavan has a better idea...

Give the Middle East to the Jews!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uIEeiDjdUuU

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2013, 12:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uIEeiDjdUuU

In an effort to bring peace to the Middle East, President Barack Obama has proposed that Israel should return to its 1967 borders in exchange for being annihilated by its enemies. PJTV's Andrew Klavan has a better idea...

Give the Middle East to the Jews!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uIEeiDjdUuU
You need to learn how to embed YouTube videos. There is a button on the top right of the editing screen. I'll demonstrate; it's a good one by Klavan:
uIEeiDjdUuU

antichrist
23-06-2013, 11:46 AM
So what whatever the UN says, any action against Israel will be vetoed by the USA, so what does the USA get in return - terrorist bombings, ask our mate Bin Laden about it

------------------------------------------
UN report accuses Israel of child torture
Date
June 21, 2013

http://www.smh.com.au/world/un-report-accuses-israel-of-child-torture-20130621-2om9x.html

Palestinian children stand at the entrance of their house in a Gaza Strip refugee camp. AFP PHOTO/Mohammed ABED
Geneva: A United Nations human rights watchdog has accused Israel’s police and military of abuses against Palestinian children ranging from torture to threats of death and sexual assault in prisons.

In a report on Israel’s record, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its ‘‘deepest concern about the reported practice of torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian children arrested, prosecuted and detained by the military and the police’’.

The committee said soldiers arrested Palestinian youngsters regularly during night-time sweeps, tying their hands painfully and blindfolding them, and often transferring them to detention centres without informing their parents.

It also said that arrested Palestinian children were subjected systematically to physical and verbal abuse, threatened with death, physical violence, and sexual assault against themselves or members of their family, as well as having access restricted to toilets, food and water.


‘‘These crimes are perpetrated from the time of arrest, during transfer and interrogation, to obtain a confession but also on an arbitrary basis as testified by several Israeli soldiers as well as during pre-trial detention,’’ said the committee.

It had obtained its information from other UN rights bodies, military sources and Israeli and Palestinian rights groups.

Israel did not cooperate with requests for information on the issue, it said.

Besides spotlighting abuses in Palestinian territories, it also expressed grave concern at the number of Palestinian youngsters who have been held in Israeli jails.

It said that an estimated 7000 children aged from 12 to 17 years, but sometimes as young as nine, have been arrested, interrogated and detained since 2002 - an average of two per day.

Most were taken in after being accused of throwing stones at Israeli forces and settlers, an offence which can carry a 20-year penalty.

In April this year, 236 children were in military detention centres, with dozens aged between 12 and 15, the report said, drawing on data from UNICEF and Israeli rights group B’tselem.

A spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry rejected the findings of the report, which he said were ‘‘not based on any direct investigation on the ground’’.

‘‘In this case, we are not talking about any kind of investigation,’’ he said.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/un-report-accuses-israel-of-child-torture-20130621-2om9x.html#ixzz2X0143e50

Oepty
23-06-2013, 11:56 AM
If true these are despicable acts that should be condemned by everyone and the Israeli government should not allow their soldiers to continue undertaking.

However Israel must exist and will continue to exist. USA is a good friend of Israel and should be applauded for their support.

antichrist
23-06-2013, 12:17 PM
This pic actually vastly understates the difference. When relative land areas and populations are considered, the difference is even starker.
See also Why Some Arabs Extol Israel’s Virtues (http://www.charismanews.com/world/39773-why-some-arabs-extol-israel-s-virtues)

Yes, there are 1.5 million Israeli Arabs in our nation. They are not Palestinians.

What is different about these Arabs is they possess all the rights and privileges as Israeli Jews, similar to the rights that most Western countries enjoy. Unlike in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, they have freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to travel. Just about the only thing that an Israeli Arab can’t do that Israeli Jews can, is serve in the Israeli Defense Forces—and some of them do that (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5727).

An Arab living in Haifa can go to the center of the city, hold a sign that says he thinks Prime Minister Netanyahu is stupid and then go home and enjoy his family. No one will arrest him. Ask the same Arab to move to Saudi Arabia and hold up a sign saying, “King Abdullah has the brains of a camel.” He wouldn’t last 10 minutes.

Furthermore, Israeli Arab women can drive (unlike in Saudi Arabia). No one tell them what they can wear, but in many countries, women would be physically beaten by religious police for leaving the house in a T-shirt and jeans.


And there are very valid and simple reasons why there are not many Jews in the surrounding countries:

Some Jews don't want to live with Arabs. (some Jews love living with Arabs and marry with them)

Some Jews want to live in Israel in spite of where they were previously living, eg. Europe or Australia or USA

Some Jews, as in Egypt, were traitors to their host country (as predicted by Jewish intellectuals fifty years earlier when the Zionist/non-Zionist fight was going on strongly). Thus traitory made it very difficult for them to stay in their host country, whether Egypt or other Arab countries.

Jewish terrorist pre-Israel violently expelled tens of thousands of Palestinians/Arabs out of parts of Palestine that become Israel. So some Arab countries dished out equal medicine.

And amazingly many Ortho Jews don't even agree with the creation of the Jewish state - that is nothing short of apartheid anyway. A criminal state in many features.

antichrist
23-06-2013, 03:15 PM
If true these are despicable acts that should be condemned by everyone and the Israeli government should not allow their soldiers to continue undertaking.

However Israel must exist and will continue to exist. USA is a good friend of Israel and should be applauded for their support.

I believe a study of Israel's invention, philosophical, ethnic and religious arguments do not justify its existence as a Jewish state. As a multicultural state yes where everyone has equal rights yes, where land robbed from the Palestinians is returned yes, where democracy exists yes, where all refugees can return and vote in such elections yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QY6nL06qYts

this video shows a recent demo where even Ortho Jews are against the creation of a Jewish state, for religious reasons and political reasons because of the Jewish blood calously spilt in Europe to achieve that aim.

Read about Bi-Nationalism efforts by Jewish moderates prior to the creation of Israel

antichrist
23-06-2013, 03:27 PM
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Does this also apply to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who have been killed at will for generations by Zionists?

Ian Murray
30-06-2013, 02:56 PM
Why Some Arabs Extol Israel’s Virtues (http://www.charismanews.com/world/39773-why-some-arabs-extol-israel-s-virtues)
[INDENT]Yes, there are 1.5 million Israeli Arabs in our nation. They are not Palestinians.

What is different about these Arabs is they possess all the rights and privileges as Israeli Jews, similar to the rights that most Western countries enjoy....

Israeli Arabs enjoying the same rights and privileges as Israeli Jews:


The Israeli government is moving ahead with a plan to displace tens of thousands of Bedouin citizens from “unrecognized” villages in the Negev desert. Many of the “unrecognized” villages predate the state, while others are internally displaced peoples from other parts of the Negev from 1948.

The Prawer-Begin plan, if implemented, will see most of the unrecognized villages destroyed, and some — mainly in the triangle between Ksseifa, Dimona and Beer Sheba — recognized by the state. Community leaders, however, vow to resist the plan, which would be the largest displacement of a Palestinian population by Israel in decades.
http://972mag.com/special/prawer-plan-to-displace-bedouin/

Jewish settlers have been camped out in an illegal settlement in the Negev (Naqab) forest of Yatir for two and a half years, waiting for the unrecognized Bedouin village of Umm al-Hieran to be razed so they can move in and build an exclusively-Jewish settlement on its ruins...
http://972mag.com/watch-jewish-settlers-await-the-destruction-of-bedouin-village-in-negev/66859/

antichrist
05-07-2013, 10:36 PM
Instructions for the Conquest of Canaan
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31&version=NKJV
50 Now the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho, saying, 51 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you have crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 52 then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their engraved stones, destroy all their molded images, and demolish all their high places; 53 you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land and dwell in it, for I have given you the land to possess. 54 And you shall divide the land by lot as an inheritance among your families; to the larger you shall give a larger inheritance, and to the smaller you shall give a smaller inheritance; there everyone’s inheritance shall be whatever falls to him by lot. You shall inherit according to the tribes of your fathers. 55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land where you dwell. 56 Moreover it shall be that I will do to you as I thought to do to them.’”

Footnotes:

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2013, 12:27 AM
“Presence of the Jews in the West Bank do not contact prospects for peace” —Speech by Caroline Glick

Exposes the "Palestinian" lie that peace requires the Nazi policy of judenrein areas in Judea and Samaria. Yet not only Jewish civil rights are being violated, but also those of women being subjugate, as well as the Christian Arabs who are being forced out.

yx_ML5oCtMU

antichrist
21-07-2013, 02:45 PM
well the Jonos are claiming in Zimmerman thread that the case of Zimmerman killing Martin is not so serious because most Afro Americans are killed by Afro Americans. would the same verdict if that argument was ussed by Palestinian freedomfighters in Israel - sort of what are you Israeli's on about, you kill more of each other than what Palestinian freedomfighters kill!

antichrist
22-07-2013, 10:17 AM
now if the Canaanites (then Palestinians) had Stand Your Ground legislation when the Hebrews came to genocide them, which side would have Jono and Mrs Jono's blessing?

antichrist
25-07-2013, 12:36 PM
AC
there is some justice in blacks killing whites - why not because the whites enslaved them for hundreds of years, now the blacks are expected to just forget it - no way Jose and Jono

Jono
No black alive in America has ever been a slave, and no American white today has every enslaved anyone or even assisted in this. So how is it justice to kill someone just because he happens to be the same race as one group of slavers?


AC
The white benefited greatly from black slavery but have yet to pay the price for it, it is obvious with right wing idiot nuts like you around they never will pay - so the blacks like the Palestinians can only do the best thing - TAKE REVENGE

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2013, 07:04 AM
1,000 Jurists to EU: Settlements are Legal (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/170582#.Uf6_1JKkzZ0)
Mammoth petition delivered to Catherine Ashton states: '1967 lines' don't exist.
By Gil Ronen, 4 August 2013

A mammoth jurists' petition delivered to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton states that the EU is wrong in holding that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.

The letter is signed by over 1,000 jurists worldwide.

Among the signatories are former justice minister Prof. Yaakov Ne'eman; former UN Ambassaor Dr. Meir Rosen; Britain's Baroness Prof. Ruth Deech, Prof. Eliav Shochetman and Prof. Talia Einhorn. They include legal scholars from the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Malta, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Taiwan, South Africa, Sweden and, of course, Israel.

antichrist
05-08-2013, 07:31 AM
1,000 Jurists to EU: Settlements are Legal (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/170582#.Uf6_1JKkzZ0)
Mammoth petition delivered to Catherine Ashton states: '1967 lines' don't exist.
By Gil Ronen, 4 August 2013

A mammoth jurists' petition delivered to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton states that the EU is wrong in holding that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.

The letter is signed by over 1,000 jurists worldwide.

Among the signatories are former justice minister Prof. Yaakov Ne'eman; former UN Ambassaor Dr. Meir Rosen; Britain's Baroness Prof. Ruth Deech, Prof. Eliav Shochetman and Prof. Talia Einhorn. They include legal scholars from the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Malta, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Taiwan, South Africa, Sweden and, of course, Israel.

so if they do not exist why do any lines exist - so might equal right. So if Palestinians could amass armies and take all of Israel that is okay with you?

You are just confirming my sigfile that Israeli Zionists are the biggest and brutalist robbers of the twentieth and twenty first centuries

antichrist
07-08-2013, 07:50 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Silence_(non-governmental_organization)

Breaking The Silence (BtS) (Hebrew: שוברים שתיקה‎ Shovrim Shtika) is an Israeli Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), located in a western section of Jerusalem, established by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers and veterans who collect and provide testimonies about their military service in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem since the Second Intifada, giving serving and discharged Israeli personnel and reservists a platform to confidentially describe their experience in the Israeli-occupied territories. It has been described, in an American Jewish newspaper, as a "left-wing soldiers' protest organization".[1]
----------------------------------------------------------------
AC
this group, upon witnessing the injustices that Israel IDF inflict on innocent Palestinians in the Occupied Territories come back changed people and want to relate to Israel at large what the Israeli govt is doing in their name.

Recently a book was reveiwed in the smh, The Girl Who Stole my Holocaust, written by one such soldier, who tells of the horror and fright the Palestinian girl suffered by just seeing an Israeli solider, due to all the horrors Israel has inflicted on her people.

That experience alone changed the soldier to realise that the Palestinians are suffering their own Holocaust and it is being perpetrated by victims of their own Holocaust.

antichrist
20-08-2013, 04:04 AM
In a lead up to the current peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel, Israel has given permission for 3,000 more homes to be built on illegally occupied territory.

Yet it has released some Palestinians - but they are just freedom fighters who should never have imprisoned anyway, and had already been imprisoned for over 20 years. If Israel did not support the Palestinian cause to some effect they would never release these prisoners.

antichrist
21-08-2013, 01:09 PM
Why? The NRA was instrumental in arming blacks against the Democratic KKK, which of course called for "No guns for Negroes". Hitler wanted Germany disarmed, so he of course believed "No guns for Jews." Despots don't want their victims to be capable of fighting back.

AC
and this is exactly what Israel does to Palestinian freedom fighters - they even bomb other countries that may try to get guns to the freedom fighters. Israel did break such weapon embargoes before they forcible got their state.

Capablanca-Fan
22-08-2013, 06:30 AM
AC
and this is exactly what Israel does to Palestinian freedom fighters - they even bomb other countries that may try to get guns to the freedom fighters. Israel did break such weapon embargoes before they forcible got their state.
The difference is: blacks (apart from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) aren't trying to annihilate whites.

Capablanca-Fan
24-08-2013, 01:05 PM
:evil:

Rincewind
24-08-2013, 01:09 PM
If Jono isn't a bigot, why does he say so many bigoted things?

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2013, 01:15 PM
I think it's about some Christians being dangerous in different ways. Blowing things up in response to minor criticism is not the only way in which a religion or denomination can be dangerous. It can also be dangerous by promoting mis-education of children, by employing political pressure to support illiberalism and discrimination in the interests of its "morality", by coercing obedience with threats of hellfire, and by having command structures that facilitate both child abuse and the hushing up thereof. Turning the other cheek in one way does not negate these dangers. Of course, many Christians are not dangerous in any of these ways.

Capablanca-Fan
24-08-2013, 01:19 PM
If Jono isn't a bigot, why does he say so many bigoted things?
If RW isn't a halfwit, then why does he ask so many leading questions.

antichrist
27-08-2013, 08:18 AM
Jono, we can kick the poop out of Christianity cozy it is our own culture. It is mine to curse as much as yours to love. If criticism does not occur society will become static and stagnate. You already know this answer to be correct only you don't like to face the truth. The cocoon Muslims is how cocoon CHRISTIANS WERE NOT TOO long ago, and some like yourself still are. Ignorance is universal. Power trippers like yourself are also universal. You will always have sucker followers because that's how evolution designed us.

Redmond Barry
27-08-2013, 08:22 AM
If RW isn't a halfwit, then why does he ask so many leading questions.

is that supposed to make sense ? :confused:

Desmond
27-08-2013, 09:47 AM
is that supposed to make sense ? :confused:
I wonder, if you have two half-wits together, oh say, married for several decades, do you add them together and get a full-wit or do them multiply and make a quarter-wit?

Maybe Jono knows.

Redmond Barry
27-08-2013, 10:39 AM
I wonder, if you have two half-wits together, oh say, married for several decades, do you add them together and get a full-wit or do them multiply and make a quarter-wit?

Maybe Jono knows.

im not too sure. i would guess this relationship you speak of would only serve to amplify each individuals own stupidity so 1/4 wit would appear to be quite an accurate amount to award them.

historically it is also true that two negatives multiplied together result in a positive, although obviously in the case of any "hypothetical" relationship occuring on this messageboard, it may well be impossible to tap into the combined positive that has supposedly been produced.

i think the empirical equation goes something like this ........
refractory individual * gormless half-wit = normal couple. (shocking isnt it)

mathematics sure has a lot to answer for if this is true !!!

Thinking about it some more, maybe the jonos have been sent here to this messageboard to disprove a specific branch of mathematics. Its quite clear now that people should stop believing that "-1*-1=1", due to the fact that the combined powers of 2 crackbrained individuals do nothing to function as anything other than an even bigger negative.

i propose that -1*-1 actually arrives at a value of -1000000000. that is the appalling true power of the combined jonoisms that we are subjected to.

just call me australias answer to paul erdos !!!!!

:wow:

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2013, 05:43 PM
I wonder, if you have two half-wits together, oh say, married for several decades, do you add them together and get a full-wit or do them multiply and make a quarter-wit?

Maybe Jono knows.
I sure get to know a lot on Chesschat.

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2013, 02:32 PM
If Jono isn't a bigot, why does he say so many bigoted things?
That halfhead RW doesn't realize that his idol Richard Dawkins said:


“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2013, 02:39 PM
I think it's about some Christians being dangerous in different ways. Blowing things up in response to minor criticism is not the only way in which a religion or denomination can be dangerous.
That is a pretty major way. That is why people are not afraid to offend Christians by burning Bibles in Afghanistan but whinge at an obscure Florida pastor burning Korans. And these same morons even say from one side of their forked tongues that this will endanger American troops in Afghanistan, and on the other say that Islam is a religion of peace. And from We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html):

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.


It can also be dangerous by promoting mis-education of children, by employing political pressure to support illiberalism
Atheopaths have been at the forefront of the extreme illiberalism known as political correctness.


and discrimination in the interests of its "morality", by coercing obedience with threats of hellfire,
I.e. not dangerous at all, except because it disagrees with dogmatic atheopaths.


and by having command structures that facilitate both child abuse and the hushing up thereof.
You mean like the government schools?

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2013, 03:05 PM
Atheopaths have been at the forefront of the extreme illiberalism known as political correctness.

Some people who happen to be atheists support versions of PC-type laws that go much too far. Generally, however, they do it in the name of some other ideology that they also follow, rather than specifically because they are atheists. It is, largely, different to Christian extremism that is extremism in the name of Christianity and motivated by a view of what that religion teaches. Atheism after all is simply disbelief in the existence of God and not a system that aims to determine other beliefs.


I.e. not dangerous at all, except because it disagrees with dogmatic atheopaths.

Ipse dixit


You mean like the government schools?

The issue was whether some Christians are dangerous. Whether or not "government schools" are also dangerous based on evidence you haven't advanced yet is immaterial to that.

antichrist
29-08-2013, 03:20 PM
That halfhead RW doesn't realize that his idol Richard Dawkins said:


“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”

well Dawkins certainly was not following the civil war in Lebanon, in his era. They certainly blew up buildings - but only in Muslim areas.

As well I have been threatened with death several times by M/E Christians, and by Filipino ones as well. I would be dead within 5 mins I was warned if I go to M/E, plus I have been assulted numerous times by Christians for being an atheist

Rincewind
29-08-2013, 03:32 PM
That halfhead RW doesn't realize that his idol Richard Dawkins said:


“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”

If Jono isn't such a braindead bigot how come all he posts here are quotes that he can cut and paste from the many bigoted sites he frequents?

antichrist
29-08-2013, 09:24 PM
If Jono isn't such a braindead bigot how come all he posts here are quotes that he can cut and paste from the many bigoted sites he frequents?

I can finally use a relevant analogy. Yes RW, what Jono is doing is exactly the same as what the Israelis are doing in Palestine, just cut a name out of the OT and paste over a map of Palestine and then claim for their own. In spite of it being a Palestinian village for 1500 years. If the West Papuans dont have rights to an autonomous and they lost their country in my life time, what rights do the ancient Hebrews have from 2,000 years ago. Also considering that anyone can become a Jew and then claim land over there. Pure unadulterated robbery

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2013, 12:19 AM
Some people who happen to be atheists support versions of PC-type laws that go much too far. Generally, however, they do it in the name of some other ideology that they also follow, rather than specifically because they are atheists. It is, largely, different to Christian extremism that is extremism in the name of Christianity and motivated by a view of what that religion teaches. Atheism after all is simply disbelief in the existence of God and not a system that aims to determine other beliefs.
It's notable that atheism, when it obtains power (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) indeed becomes far more illiberal against rival belief systems than any Christian regime has ever been. Similarly, in countries that have any quasi-Christian background, Muslims are free to practise their faith. But in the middle east, Christians are being murdered by Obamov's buddies in Egypt and Syria (http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/how-the-west-is-helping-to-destroy-christianity-in-syria/).


Ipse dixit
You have not proven any objective danger that remotely compares to blowing up buildings and hijacking aeroplanes.


The issue was whether some Christians are dangerous.
The alleged danger from Christianity was from a tiny minority of mainly Catholic priests violating the sacred tenets of their religion.


Whether or not "government schools" are also dangerous based on evidence you haven't advanced yet is immaterial to that.
Plenty of it, even from leftist sources like Slate: How Many Kids Are Sexually Abused by Their Teachers? Probably millions (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html), by Brian Palmer, Feb. 8, 2012. Yet in California, a Democrat bill has been passed that exempts the government schools from sexual abuse lawsuits (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/09/CA-SB-131-Exempts-Public-Schools-from-Lawsuits-on-Sex-Abuse), although private schools can be sued for allegations of things that supposedly happened 40 years previously.

A more likely reason for both is that perverts with an inclination to abuse kids are more likely to gravitate to professions where they have contact with and authority over kids (TSA is a new avenue (http://tsanewsblog.com/2572/news/yet-another-child-abused-by-tsa/)).

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2013, 01:24 AM
It's notable that atheism, when it obtains power (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) indeed becomes far more illiberal against rival belief systems than any Christian regime has ever been.

It's not notable. It's notable that when a certain brand of disfigured "communism", that happens to be incidentally atheist, obtains power, that it is illiberal - not on account of its atheism but because communism can only be maintained effectively by suppressing all liberal belief systems. Furthermore it doesn't just become illiberal towards competing religious views as your comments might suggest, it becomes illiberal towards competing political views as well. Western atheists today don't generally support state atheism and are more likely to support state secularism (as to their credit do some Christians).


You have not proven any objective danger that remotely compares to blowing up buildings and hijacking aeroplanes.

A melodramatic and inapplicable comparison even by the standards of the thingy you posted in #1366. People who are afraid of offending Muslims in the West do not generally believe they will respond by blowing up buildings or hijacking aeroplanes. The dangers people are concerned about are generally on a smaller scale than that. Within the west itself, Christians cause far more total harm of the sorts we are discussing than Islamists would no matter how offensive we were to the latter. But that is mainly because there are not so many Islamists and we have good security protections against their behaviour. Rather than taking adequate precautions against illiberal and dangerous Christians, we tend instead to elect them to parliament.


The alleged danger from Christianity was from a tiny minority of mainly Catholic priests violating the sacred tenets of their religion.

Unfortunately something being a claimed tenet of a religion provides no guarantee that any proportion of members of that religion will reliably follow it. Some denominations have cultures of institutionalised hypocrisy, in which the idea is to enforce dogma on others but followers can get away with not following it very well themselves. As for abuse, even the cases we are hearing of suggest the minority was more than tiny and that they are the tip of the iceberg.


A more likely reason for both is that perverts with an inclination to abuse kids are more likely to gravitate to professions where they have contact with and authority over kids

That is certainly part of the problem. But the question then is whether those professions have adequate mechanisms for responding to such conduct, or tend to respond by hushing it up, protecting it and enabling it.

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2013, 01:24 PM
The Israeli Spring (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19745)
By Victor Davis Hanson · August 29, 2013

Israel could be forgiven for having a siege mentality -- given that at any moment, old frontline enemies Syria and Egypt might spill their violence over common borders.

The Arab Spring has turned Israel's once-predictable adversaries into the chaotic state of a Sudan or Somalia. The old understandings between Jerusalem and the Assad and Mubarak kleptocracies seem in limbo.

Yet these tragic Arab revolutions swirling around Israel are paradoxically aiding it, both strategically and politically -- well beyond the erosion of conventional Arab military strength.

In terms of realpolitik, anti-Israeli authoritarians are fighting to the death against anti-Israeli insurgents and terrorists. Each is doing more damage to the other than Israel ever could -- and in an unprecedented, grotesque fashion. Who now is gassing Arab innocents? Shooting Arab civilians in the streets? Rounding up and executing Arab civilians? Blowing up Arab houses? Answer: either Arab dictators or radical Islamists.

The old nexus of radical Islamic terror of the last three decades is unraveling. With a wink and a nod, Arab dictatorships routinely subsidized Islamic terrorists to divert popular anger away from their own failures to the West or Israel. In the deal, terrorists got money and sanctuary. The Arab Street blamed others for their own government-inflicted miseries. And thieving authoritarians posed as Islam's popular champions.

But now, terrorists have turned on their dictator sponsors. And even the most ardent Middle East conspiracy theorists are having troubling blaming the United States and Israel.

What do the Egyptian military, the French in Mali, Americans at home, the Russians, the Gulf monarchies, persecuted Middle Eastern Christians and the reformers of the Arab Spring all have in common? Like Israel, they are all fighting Islamic-inspired fanaticism. And most of them, like Israel, are opposed to the idea of a nuclear Iran.

In comparison to the ruined economies of the Arab Spring -- tourism shattered, exports nonexistent, and billions of dollars in infrastructure lost through unending violence -- Israel is an atoll of prosperity and stability. Factor in its recent huge gas and oil finds in the eastern Mediterranean, and it may soon become another Kuwait or Qatar, but with a real economy beyond its booming petroleum exports.

Israel had nothing to do with either the Arab Spring or its failure. The irony is that surviving embarrassed Arab regimes now share the same concerns of the Israelis.

In short, the more violent and chaotic the Middle East becomes, the more secure and exceptional Israel appears.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 02:25 PM
Ali Wahab - Arab Muslim & Major in the IDF (http://israel-lightontonations.blogspot.com/2013/05/ali-wahab-arab-muslim-major-in-idf.html)

Israel is the only country in the world where Arabs are free and at home. Everywhere else, Arab people have to choose: home and tyranny or exile and freedom. Not in Israel. Here, they get both. Here, they can be themselves with pride. That is Zionism. And that is something to celebrate.

Israel is the ONLY country in the Middle East that treats Arabs with dignity, fairness and equality. The only... one that grants them their basic, democratic rights. The Arab Spring has still not changed that reality.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Palestinian Arabs were made full citizens -- and have risen to become ministers in government, ambassadors, justices of the supreme court, leading scientists, businessmen, members of parliament, celebrities and military officers.

Surrounded by an ocean of Arab states, Israel is nonetheless the only country in the Middle East where Arab people are allowed to freely speak their mind and conscience. We didn't need an Arab Spring in Israel... Freedom of expression, religion, commerce, conscience... these are a given in Israel. That is why it thrives.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2013, 03:59 PM
Unfortunately something being a claimed tenet of a religion provides no guarantee that any proportion of members of that religion will reliably follow it. Some denominations have cultures of institutionalised hypocrisy, in which the idea is to enforce dogma on others but followers can get away with not following it very well themselves. As for abuse, even the cases we are hearing of suggest the minority was more than tiny and that they are the tip of the iceberg.
Here is an interesting hostile witness:

Priestly abuse of children is nowadays taken to mean sexual abuse, and I feel obliged, at the outset, to get the whole matter of sexual abuse into proportion and out of the way. Others have noted that we live in a time of hysteria about pedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witch-hunts of 1692… All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affections for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless, if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience).

The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium. For all sorts of reasons I dislike the Roman Catholic Church. But I dislike unfairness even more, and I can’t help wondering whether this one institution has been unfairly demonized over the issue, especially in Ireland and America… We should be aware of the remarkable power of the mind to concoct false memories, especially when abetted by unscrupulous therapists and mercenary lawyers. The psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has shown great courage, in the face of spiteful vested interests, in demonstrating how easy it is for people to concoct memories that are entirely false but which seem, to the victim, every bit as real as true memories. This is so counter-intuitive that juries are easily swayed by sincere but false testimony from witnesses. [Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 315–16]

Ian Murray
04-09-2013, 07:47 AM
...This is so counter-intuitive that juries are easily swayed by sincere but false testimony from witnesses. [Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 315–16]
e.g. the gorilla experiment:

D_m_9N_3u7o

Ian Murray
04-09-2013, 07:43 PM
...Israel is the ONLY country in the Middle East that treats Arabs with dignity, fairness and equality. The only... one that grants them their basic, democratic rights…
Says he, as the Israeli government presses ahead with plans to dispossess Israeli Arabs in the Negev of their ancestral homes (homes which are denied basic services like electricity and local schools and medical centres).

U.S. Jews see the Bedouin issues as a test for Jewish values - and donations
(http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.545133)
Rabbi Jill Jacobs
Haaretz
3.9.13

The destruction of Negev Bedouin communities not only violates women's rights and Israel's Jewish and democratic values, but also the good faith in which we American Jews make our donations to the JNF and Israel....

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2013, 02:01 AM
e.g. the gorilla experiment:

D_m_9N_3u7o
Indeed, also on pp. 14–15 of The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins tries to undermine the reliability of eye-witnesses by citing that experiment. Prof. Daniel J. Simons at the University of Illinois showed a film of a ring of young people tossing a basketball to each other, and asks the audience to count the number of passes. Then he asked, “how many saw the gorilla?”, which most didn’t, including Dawkins. Allowing the audience to see the film again, ignoring basketball passes, and being forewarned, they saw the gorilla, much to their amazement. Yet all this shows is that people can be distracted and overlook something; the number of passes counted is likely to be accurate. It does not show that circumstantial evidence about the past should overcome a reliable eye witness.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2013, 02:21 PM
COMMUNITY ORGANIZER GOES TO WAR (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/04/community-organizer-goes-to-war/)
Ann Coulter, 4 Sept 2013


Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein.

Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and Libya?
As for chemical weapons — the casus belli for the current drums of war — in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of these poisons.

Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds, resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many. That’s to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently, Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him in the same league as “Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.”

Not even close — but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that removed such a monster as Hussein?
There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq, just no “stockpiles.” Those had been moved before the war, according to Saddam’s own general, Georges Sada — to Syria.)

On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a “war of choice”?

Ian Murray
07-09-2013, 10:57 AM
Indeed, also on pp. 14–15 of The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins tries to undermine the reliability of eye-witnesses by citing that experiment. Prof. Daniel J. Simons at the University of Illinois showed a film of a ring of young people tossing a basketball to each other, and asks the audience to count the number of passes. Then he asked, “how many saw the gorilla?”, which most didn’t, including Dawkins. Allowing the audience to see the film again, ignoring basketball passes, and being forewarned, they saw the gorilla, much to their amazement. Yet all this shows is that people can be distracted and overlook something; the number of passes counted is likely to be accurate. It does not show that circumstantial evidence about the past should overcome a reliable eye witness.
That's quite an assumption. A more logical deduction is that a reliable eyewitness is a rarity, apart from trained observers.

Is eyewitness testimony too unreliable to trust? (http://theweek.com/article/index/221008/is-eyewitness-testimony-too-unreliable-to-trust)
The Week
4.11.11


...Why are so many eyewitnesses mistaken?
Human memory is fragile and malleable. More than 2,000 studies on eyewitnesses in recent decades have determined that recollections are prone to decay, distortion, and suggestion. Honest, well-meaning people often simply misremember or misreport what they have seen. In one 1974 experiment, for example, more than two thousand people were shown a 13-second video clip of a mugging, followed by a six-man lineup. Just 14 percent of viewers correctly identified the perpetrator — a success rate lower than that of random guessing. In a 1999 study, 150 college students watched videos of a shooting and then of a five-man lineup. Every one of them identified a suspect, even though the culprit was not pictured. Factors such as fear, poor lighting, the presence of a weapon during a crime, and the passage of time have all been shown to cause mistakes in identifications — even when the witness is the victim of the crime. Witnesses are particularly inaccurate, studies show, when asked to remember the facial features of someone of a different race....

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2013, 12:15 PM
That's quite an assumption. A more logical deduction is that a reliable eyewitness is a rarity, apart from trained observers.
This might be true of split-second things like many crimes, which is why one must wonder about the convictions of many in prison today. I wonder why the evidence such as your cite seems to be ignored in courts.

But in other cases, it would be foolish to ignore eye witnesses. Lindy Chamberlain was falsely convicted by fallacious scientific evidence while exculpatory eye-witness evidence was ignored. Here there were none of the conditions like the basketball misdirection or the split second look at a criminal.

It would not apply to many events of history either, which are not like the distraction of the gorilla experiment.

antichrist
07-09-2013, 05:05 PM
This might be true of split-second things like many crimes, which is why one must wonder about the convictions of many in prison today. I wonder why the evidence such as your cite seems to be ignored in courts.

But in other cases, it would be foolish to ignore eye witnesses. Lindy Chamberlain was falsely convicted by fallacious scientific evidence while exculpatory eye-witness evidence was ignored. Here there were none of the conditions like the basketball misdirection or the split second look at a criminal.

It would not apply to many events of history either, which are not like the distraction of the gorilla experiment.


I am still not convinced either way on the Chamberlain case, because from early on they decided not to interview the 12yo son who was a key witness, they should have dropped the whole case. And why were those clothes found neatly folded up, like just back from the dry cleaners?

Ian Murray
08-09-2013, 08:14 AM
This might be true of split-second things like many crimes, which is why one must wonder about the convictions of many in prison today. I wonder why the evidence such as your cite seems to be ignored in courts.

But in other cases, it would be foolish to ignore eye witnesses. Lindy Chamberlain was falsely convicted by fallacious scientific evidence while exculpatory eye-witness evidence was ignored. Here there were none of the conditions like the basketball misdirection or the split second look at a criminal.

It would not apply to many events of history either, which are not like the distraction of the gorilla experiment.

There is any amount of evidence demonstrating the fallibility of human memory as well as false memory. Ten eyewitnesses will give ten eyewitness accounts differing in fact and detail. So eyewitness accounts should be corroborated first, and not accepted as prime testimony.

Split-second observations are irrelevant here; we're talking about ample observation time, e.g. from the source I cited above:

When a man broke into Jennifer Thompson's apartment in 1984 and raped her, the 22-year-old college student made a point of studying his face so she could later identify him. When she picked Ronald Cotton out of both a photo and a physical lineup, she was dead sure she'd found her attacker, and the jury took just 40 minutes to find him guilty. In prison, Cotton met an inmate who bragged that he'd committed the rape. At a new trial, Thompson looked at the two men and again chose Cotton. "I have never seen" the other man, she said. Nearly a decade later, DNA proved the other inmate had been her rapist. Because Cotton was the only person who appeared in both lineups presented to Thompson, she may have unconsciously settled on him as her attacker. She didn't recognize the real rapist in court because she'd "been picking [Cotton] all along," says memory expert Elizabeth Loftus. After more than a decade in prison, Cotton was exonerated. He and Thompson, now friends, travel the country lobbying for reformed identification procedures.

antichrist
15-09-2013, 07:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VUiM8t3QAg

George Galloway opens up on Zionism

antichrist
15-09-2013, 07:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm91gEoRpSY
Galloway on Israel and the invasion of Gaza

Igor_Goldenberg
23-09-2013, 03:14 PM
20 years ago Israel and PLO signed a piece accord (known as Oslo agreement). By no means Israel was forced to do so.
My question:
What benefits did people of Israel get from Oslo accord? In other words, was it in national interest?

Capablanca-Fan
23-09-2013, 03:17 PM
Pat Condell on Feminists and Islamic Misogyny (http://moonbattery.com/?p=36941)

"As leftists used to say openly, the issue is never the issue. For feminists, the issue is not feminism, or they never would have championed serial molester and probable rapist Bill Clinton — and as Pat Condell points out, they would fight Islam tooth and nail instead of grasping at any excuse to side with it against their own society"
Condell provides a number of examples, such as a Norwegian woman in Dubai who was raped, but the Islamopolizei charged her with adultery and she was sentenced to longer than the rapist. The western feminazis never raised a peep of course.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GbmeQtGMkUU

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2013, 10:30 AM
Good question;

"It was a bloody weekend… Islamists from Somalia attacked a mall in Nairobi, Kenya. As of this writing 68 are dead and hundreds wounded… Islamists blew up a Christian Church in Pakistan. Dozens were killed… When are Muslim religious leaders going to issue a fatwa that these terrorists are on the express elevator to hell and not to heaven? Don’t hold your breath."

Beckel: Time has come for moderate Muslims to stand up (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2688438464001/beckel-time-has-come-for-moderate-muslims-to-stand-up/?playlist_id=2114913880001)
Co-host of 'The Five' reacts to Kenyan mall terror attack

Ian Murray
02-10-2013, 08:07 AM
US cowardice will let Israel’s isolated right off the hook (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-cowardice-will-let-israels-isolated-right-off-the-hook-8852085.html)
The Independent
1.10.13


These are hard times for the Israeli right. Used to bullying the US – and especially its present, shallow leader – the Likudists suddenly find that the whole world wants peace in the Middle East rather than war. Brits and Americans didn’t want to go to war in Syria. Now, with the pleasant smile of President Rouhani gracing their television screens, fully accepting the facts of the Jewish Holocaust – unlike his deranged and infantile predecessor – the Americans (75 per cent, if we are to believe the polls) don’t want to go to war with Iran either....

What we do know is that when Mr Rouhani started saying all the things we had been demanding that Iran should say for years, Israel went bananas. Mr Netanyahu condemned him before he had even said a word. “A wolf in sheep’s clothing.” “An anti-Semite.” Even when Mr Rouhani spoke of peace and an end to nuclear suspicions, Israel’s “Strategic Affairs” Minister – whatever that means – said time had run out for future negotiations. Yuval Steinitz claimed that “if the Iranians continue to run [their nuclear programme], in another half a year they will have bomb capability”.

Mr Netanyahu’s own office joined in the smear campaign....

Capablanca-Fan
07-10-2013, 06:12 AM
The war on Christians
The global persecution of Christians is the unreported catastrophe of our time
John L. Allen Jr., Spectator, 5 October 2013

...
In recent days, people around the world have been appalled by images of attacks on churches in Pakistan, where 85 people died when two suicide bombers rushed the Anglican All Saints Church in Peshawar, and in Kenya, where an assault on a Catholic church in Wajir left one dead and two injured.

Those atrocities are indeed appalling, but they cannot truly be understood without being seen as small pieces of a much larger narrative. Consider three points about the landscape of anti-Christian persecution today, as shocking as they are generally unknown. According to the International Society for Human Rights, a secular observatory based in Frankfurt, Germany, 80 per cent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. Statistically speaking, that makes Christians by far the most persecuted religious body on the planet.

According to the Pew Forum, between 2006 and 2010 Christians faced some form of discrimination, either de jure or de facto, in a staggering total of 139 nations, which is almost three-quarters of all the countries on earth. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, an average of 100,000 Christians have been killed in what the centre calls a ‘situation of witness’ each year for the past decade. That works out to 11 Christians killed somewhere in the world every hour, seven days a week and 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith.

[rest here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9041841/the-war-on-christians/ - mod]

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2013, 11:50 AM
Boycott Israel slapdown of the month! (http://www.trendingcentral.com/boycott-israel-image-month/)
BY RAHEEM KASSAM ON NOVEMBER 5, 2013 AT 11:35 AM

“Hi there!

“Just thought you should know, the flash-storage inside this computer was designed and built by Anobit, an Israeli technology company!

“If you don’t want it any more, please pass it to the desk behind you.”

antichrist
09-12-2013, 08:07 AM
Syrian-Australians are having their OZ passports cancelled due to their Jihadism, how is Jihadism different to Zionism. Zionism is worse because it involves stealing and genocide. Yet Isreaeli-Australians can go and do two years national service in the Zionist army and not a word is spoken.

antichrist
08-01-2014, 10:13 PM
http://www.echo.net.au/byron-echo/
page 14
amazing article in this week's Byron Echo on the plight of the Palestinians. Title Middle East Conflict the legacy of a promise from God!, written by local resident Jenny Bush of Jewish background whom has visited Israel and appears to keep her Aussie fair go ethic instead of putting on Star of David rose-tinted glasses. The article reminds me of when I attended a local showing of a Palestinian film/documentary and a Jewess had to leave the premises as she was so distressed at the treatment handed out to the Palestinians.

To give justice to the Palestinians, that happens to be Australia's responsibility due to Abbott now voting pro-Israel in the United Nations, we should educate ourselves to know first hand the terrible suffering that has been inflicted on them for almost 70 years. And to understand why there cannot be peace without justice.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2014, 10:11 AM
How to Fight Academic Bigotry (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22630)
By Charles Krauthammer · Jan. 10, 2014


For decades, the American Studies Association has labored in well-deserved obscurity. No longer. It's now made a name for itself by voting to boycott Israeli universities, accusing them of denying academic and human rights to Palestinians.

Given that Israel has a profoundly democratic political system, the freest press in the Middle East, a fiercely independent judiciary, and astonishing religious and racial diversity within its universities, including affirmative action for Arab students, the charge is rather strange.

Made more so when you consider the state of human rights in Israel's neighborhood. As we speak, Syria's government is dropping “barrel bombs” filled with nails, shrapnel and other instruments of terror on its own cities. Where is the ASA boycott of Syria?

And of Iran, which hangs political, religious and even sexual dissidents and has no academic freedom at all? Or Egypt, where Christians are being openly persecuted? Or Turkey, Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, massively repressive China and Russia?

Which makes obvious that the ASA boycott has nothing to do with human rights. It's an exercise in radical chic, giving marginalized academics a frisson of pretend anti-colonialism, seasoned with a dose of edgy anti-Semitism.

And don't tell me this is merely about Zionism. The ruse is transparent. Israel is the world's only Jewish state. To apply to the state of the Jews a double standard that you apply to none other, to judge one people in a way you judge no other, to single out that one people for condemnation and isolation – is to engage in a gross act of discrimination.

And discrimination against Jews has a name. It's called anti-Semitism.



Here is Alan Dershowitz on that antisemitic boycott (http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/12/alan-dershowitz-on-the-asa-call-for-israeli-academic-boycott-2774738.html).

Desmond
12-01-2014, 01:49 PM
Aitzaz Hasan: Tributes to Pakistan teenager killed when he stopped a bomber (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25663992)


Tributes have been pouring in for a Pakistani teenager who was killed on Monday when he tackled a suicide bomber targeting his school in the Hangu area.

Aitzaz Hasan, 15, was with friends outside school when they spotted a man wearing a suicide vest.

Despite the pleas of his fellow students, he decided to confront and capture the bomber who then detonated his vest, his cousin told the BBC.
...

Capablanca-Fan
05-02-2014, 03:02 AM
Uploaded on Oct 1, 2010
A documentary about Muslim Zionists who support the State of Israel proudly as well as the Israeli defense forces (IDF) and correct those liars out there like Rafeef Ziadah about Israel being an apartheid state. They also have the famous Ismail Khaldi who is a well respected Arab soldier who is in the IDF. Historically there have been many good Arabs out there for peace who protect Israel because like many other Arabs they have been treated equally in Israel as a democratic state. They say they should fear their own Arab people first since in all the Middle East they are killing their own people yet they don't complain when Muslim kills Muslim. Many of their family members have been killed by their own Terrorist people such as Hezbollah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrubbQqHdwk

See also Brothers Milad and Muhammad Atrash, Arab Muslims from the Galilee, volunteered to defend their country by enlisting in the IDF (http://www.idfblog.com/2013/06/20/not-a-matter-of-religion/). Israeli Muslims are exempt from conscription but they enlisted anyway. They are welcomed by their fellow soldiers who don't discriminate against them on racial or religious grounds. The highest ranking Muslim in the IDF is Major Ala Wahid (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5727), highly respected by those he commands.

Capablanca-Fan
02-03-2014, 01:59 AM
Why Israel No Longer Trusts Europe (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/opinion/why-israel-no-longer-trusts-europe.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=2)
Clemens Wergin, NY Times, 28 Feb 2014


To Europe, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all problems facing the region — a view in no way altered by the Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations since 2002, which showed that Arab autocracies and cultural backwardness were the root of the region’s woes.

Even after the outbreak of the Arab revolutions revealed that indeed corruption — and lack of dignity, democracy and opportunity — were to blame for the rage of the Arab street, Europe insisted on the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2014, 08:40 AM
Where exactly is the oppression in the Middle East…hint, it’s not in Israel (http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/05/26/where-exactly-is-the-oppression-in-the-middle-east-hint-its-not-in-israel/)

Posted on 5/26/2014 by Eliyokim Cohen

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2014, 02:25 PM
Australia drops 'occupied' from references to Israeli settlements
George Brandis sparks heated debate by saying areas under negotiation should not be described in 'judgmental language'
Guardian, 4 June 2014

The Abbott government has ruled out using the term "occupied" when describing Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, prompting suggestions about a shift in Australia's foreign policy.

Ian Murray
09-06-2014, 03:21 PM
Australia drops 'occupied' from references to Israeli settlements
George Brandis sparks heated debate by saying areas under negotiation should not be described in 'judgmental language'
Guardian, 4 June 2014

The Abbott government has ruled out using the term "occupied" when describing Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, prompting suggestions about a shift in Australia's foreign policy.
The occupied territories are not under negotiation - there is no likelihood of an Israeli withdrawal.

Patrick Byrom
15-06-2014, 05:00 PM
Australia drops 'occupied' from references to Israeli settlements
George Brandis sparks heated debate by saying areas under negotiation should not be described in 'judgmental language'
Guardian, 4 June 2014
The Abbott government has ruled out using the term "occupied" when describing Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, prompting suggestions about a shift in Australia's foreign policy.
Not so fast! (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/tony-abbott-disputed-east-jerusalem-merely-a-clarification)


Tony Abbott has sought to play down the backlash over Australia's decision to refer to East Jerusalem as “disputed” rather than “occupied” territory, saying the government had made only a “terminological clarification”. The prime minister said the government had made no change in policy and strongly supported a two-state solution. But he acknowledged it was an “extremely sensitive” topic and said the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, would meet ambassadors of countries that had raised objections.

I expect there will be further 'clarifications' to come, especially if Australia starts to lose markets in the Middle East (and elsewhere).

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2014, 04:31 AM
That “terminological clarification” is very important still, because it no longer appeases the anti-semitic Arab league.

Israel, including PM Netanyahu, likewise have supported a two-state solution. The problem is that the Hamas/Fatah coalition want a judenrein one-state solution.

Israel has produced much more technology worth trading for than the Islamofascists, who have only the increasingly vilified petroleum.

Meanwhile:
Australian lesson for US, (http://www.av4i.org.au/full-articles.html#MPhillipsJun2014) By Melanie Phillips, 13 June 2014:


Recognising the Hamas/Fatah hydra serves one purpose only: to legitimise terrorist mass murderers – who are also currently in league with a country, Iran, that is at war with the US – and thus strengthen them against their potential victims.

A disgusting move, but one that should not surprise anyone who has followed the double standard by which the Obama administration gives a free pass to Abbas for inciting terror and anti-Jewish hatred while blaming Israel for building houses in areas which it was always understood would remain under its control in any final agreement, and to which it is in any event legally entitled under international law.

As t happens, at almost the very moment that the US was sliding deeper into the moral sewer a government on the other side of the world suddenly shocked the Palestinians rigid by standing up publicly for truth and justice.

The Australian Attorney-General George Brandis announced that his country would no longer refer to east Jerusalem as “occupied”. It was, he said, “a term freighted with pejorative implications, which is neither appropriate nor useful.”

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2014, 04:21 AM
Good thing they haven't succeeded in pushing Israel into the sea yet, as they have been threatening to do for almost 7 decades. Where do Islamofascist, Jew-hating, jihadists go when they need superior medical services?

That's right, Israel!

Palestinian president's wife treated in Israel hospital (http://news.yahoo.com/palestinian-presidents-wife-treated-israel-hospital-173726192.html)
AFP, 15 June 2014

Jerusalem (AFP) - The wife of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has been treated in an Israeli hospital, media reported Sunday, as Israel searched for teenagers believed to be held captive in Palestinian territory.

Israeli news site Ynet said Amina Abbas was admitted to the private Assuta hospital in Tel Aviv on Thursday.

She underwent surgery on her leg before being discharged on Sunday.

Abbas is not the only Palestinian leader to prefer Israeli medical facilities for family members.

Earlier this month, the mother-in-law of former Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya was allowed into Israel from Gaza for cancer treatment.

In November, his granddaughter was taken to an Israeli hospital to be treated for an infection in her digestive tract.

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2014, 09:06 AM
Pat Condell, an atheist, shows that Jews want peace; the Islamofascist-dominated Arabs mostly want to wipe out Jews. The imbecilic divestment campaigns would have to give up the many Israeli inventions we use, so let people boycott them. The anti-Israel movements are truly anti-semitic, since these jerks don't care about the mass murders in Arabic countries. They don't want a two-state solution, but a judenrein one-state solution. Any Jew who thinks there will be another Holocaust is a fool; quite simply, history shows that people can't be trusted not to persecute Jews.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHC8KC5cLs8

Rincewind
20-06-2014, 02:33 PM
If Australia was going to announce a change in policy regarding the occupied territories in the middle east isn't a pronouncement by a the Attorney-General at a senate estimates meeting a decidedly odd way of going about it? I think the issue is Brandis is trying to appease the pro-Israel lobby and has walked into a political minefield in doing so. This view is reinforced by Bishop and Abbott far from endorsing the view have been desperately trying to downplay the comments and doing everything they can to assure everyone other than Israel that there is no change in Australian policy. The whole thing has been a farce of epic proportions and serves to add to the mounting evidence how desperately out of their depth the present government is, especially in matters of foreign affairs.

Mr Abbott you have a double dissolution trigger, please can we have another vote?
Or failing that can we at least have another Attorney-General? Brandis is broken.

Patrick Byrom
20-06-2014, 11:00 PM
Not so fast! (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/tony-abbott-disputed-east-jerusalem-merely-a-clarification)


Tony Abbott has sought to play down the backlash over Australia's decision to refer to East Jerusalem as “disputed” rather than “occupied” territory, saying the government had made only a “terminological clarification”. The prime minister said the government had made no change in policy and strongly supported a two-state solution. But he acknowledged it was an “extremely sensitive” topic and said the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, would meet ambassadors of countries that had raised objections.

I expect there will be further 'clarifications' to come, especially if Australia starts to lose markets in the Middle East (and elsewhere).
As predicted, there has been a further 'terminological clarification' (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/ministers-condemn-australias-decision-to-call-east-jerusalem-disputed):


The head of the Palestinian delegation to Canberra, Izzat Abdulhadi, told Guardian Australia that Bishop had explained to the ambassadors at Thursday’s meeting that Brandis had been “talking about occupied with a capital O as a noun and part of East Jerusalem’s name, which the government did not support”. She said she was happy to say East Jerusalem was occupied with a small “o” as a description.

So the current position is that East Jerusalem is "occupied" but not "Occupied" - it couldn't be clearer :D

However the next statement is an absolutely clear message to George Brandis:

Bishop had also told the ambassadors “any policy change from Australia would come from her or the prime minister and not from anyone else”, he said.


No wonder Australians don't trust the Coalition to handle foreign affairs!

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2014, 12:20 AM
As predicted, there has been a further 'terminological clarification' (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/ministers-condemn-australias-decision-to-call-east-jerusalem-disputed):
Yes, a lot of cowardice involved where Islamofascist oil money is concerned. Australia long ago should have made use of its plentiful uranium.


No wonder Australians don't trust the Coalition to handle foreign affairs!
And they are right in this case. But clearly, contrary to the Leftmedia reports, Abbott has been well received overseas, including by Obamov.

Patrick Byrom
24-06-2014, 11:59 PM
Yes, a lot of cowardice involved where Islamofascist oil money is concerned. Australia long ago should have made use of its plentiful uranium.But the problem with the comments by Brandis and Abbott has nothing to do with oil. Their exercise in gestural politics has achieved nothing, except to put at risk our markets in the Middle East and elsewhere, upsetting his colleagues (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-23/rural-liberals-criticise-brandis-over-east-jerusalem-remarks/5542114): "Rural Liberals are seething over Attorney-General George Brandis's remarks about East Jerusalem, accusing him of 'intellectual arrogance'."

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2014, 12:43 AM
But the problem with the comments by Brandis and Abbott has nothing to do with oil. Their exercise in gestural politics has achieved nothing, except to put at risk our markets in the Middle East and elsewhere, upsetting his colleagues (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-23/rural-liberals-criticise-brandis-over-east-jerusalem-remarks/5542114): "Rural Liberals are seething over Attorney-General George Brandis's remarks about East Jerusalem, accusing him of 'intellectual arrogance'."
So some anti-intellectual antisemitic agrarian socialists whinge about Brandis not using the perjorative and debatable term "occupied"? And so we lose some markets with these barbaric societies? We might gain some from the only country in the middle east with equality for women and freedom of religion and one of the world's leaders in technological innovation. Here are quotes from Brandis and Abbott:


In this month's Senate hearing, Senator Brandis said neither of the major political parties used or accepted the term occupied East Jerusalem.

The next day, after consulting Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, he returned to explain the Government's position, saying "the description of East Jerusalem as 'occupied East Jerusalem' is a term freighted (sic) with pejorative implications, which is neither appropriate, nor useful."

"It should not and will not be the practice of the Australian Government to describe areas of negotiation in such judgmental language," he said.

Speaking in New York a couple of days later, Prime Minister Tony Abbott gave his take on it.

"It is important, as far as you can, not to use loaded terms, not to use pejorative terms, not to use terms which suggest that matters have been prejudged," he said.

"The truth is they are disputed territories and let's try to ensure that disputes are resolved fairly to all as best we can in an imperfect world."

Brandis is the sort of AG that the Coalition needs, not a me-too Labor-Lite appeaser in the mould of Turnbull.

Meanwhile, in response to that apostate dhimmi PCUSA "church's" vote to divest from Israeli investments, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right to label this decision “disgraceful”. He said in part:


You come to Israel, and you see the one democracy that upholds basic human rights, that guards the rights of all minorities, that protects Christians. I would suggest to the Presbyterian organizations — fly to the Middle East. Come and see Israel for the embattled democracy that it is, and then take a bus tour. Go to Libya, go to Syria, go to Iraq — and see the difference. And I would give them two pieces of advice — make sure it is an armor-plated bus and, second, don’t say that you’re Christians…. Christians are persecuted throughout the Middle East. So most Americans understand that Israel is a beacon of civilization and moderation.

Patrick Byrom
25-06-2014, 10:11 AM
So some anti-intellectual antisemitic agrarian socialists whinge about Brandis not using the perjorative and debatable term "occupied"? And so we lose some markets with these barbaric societies? We might gain some from the only country in the middle east with equality for women and freedom of religion and one of the world's leaders in technological innovation.
We could have lost billions of dollars in agricultural trade with Indonesia and Pakistan, as well as countries in the Middle East. I didn't notice Israel offering additional trade opportunities to compensate us - and this should have been arranged before Brandis's comments anyway.

But it is easy to engage in political gestures when your family income is not at risk.

Capablanca-Fan
26-06-2014, 12:27 AM
We could have lost billions of dollars in agricultural trade with Indonesia and Pakistan, as well as countries in the Middle East.
We could save a lot of foreign aid given to Islamofascist-ruled countries. A good start would be cutting off the millions of dollars of aid to Egypt because it jailed an Aussie journalist on trumped up charges (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/egypt-gets-millions-in-australian-aid-as-it-jails-journalist-peter-greste/story-fni0fiyv-1226965681878?nk=00dcc73fd95d911b152fb516e8cb2611) .


I didn't notice Israel offering additional trade opportunities to compensate us - and this should have been arranged before Brandis's comments anyway.
Did they have to? Should our support for a country's rights depend on how they can compensate us? But they are at the forefront of new technology (http://startupnationbook.com/):


START-UP NATION addresses the trillion dollar question: How is it that Israel – a country of 7.1 million, only 60 years old, surrounded by enemies, in a constant state of war since its founding, with no natural resources—produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful,and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? How is it that Israel has, per person, attracted over twice as much venture capital investment as the US and thirty times more than Europe?


But it is easy to engage in political gestures when your family income is not at risk.
It's easy to throw Israel under the bus when your income depends on appeasing Islamofascists.

Desmond
26-06-2014, 08:16 PM
9QtbRczmKNU

Rincewind
26-06-2014, 08:53 PM
I like the GOT reference at the end.

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2014, 02:35 PM
The Prime Minister of Israel

The difference between us is simple: We develop missile-defense systems to protect our citizens, while they use their citizens to protect their missiles. And this is what makes all the difference.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2014, 02:49 AM
BDS: The Attempt to Strangle Israel
Video presentation by Alan Dershowitz (http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/BDS-The-Attempt-to-Strangle-Israel.html#.U8QHbPldVtN)

The latest strategy employed by those who wish to strangle Israel is called BDS. It may sound harmless, but do not be fooled. It stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and not only is it poisonous for Israel, but for the world as well. Israel is one of the freest countries on earth, where everyone--including Arabs--benefit from that freedom. If Israel continues to be singled out by BDS and suffocated economically, the damage would ripple throughout the globe. In five minutes, learn about BDS and why it must be stopped. As Prof. Dershowitz points out, Israel is by far the freest country in the middle east; Israeli Arabs are freer than Arabs in Arabic countries; Israel has a free press, independent judiciary, and free elections; and if you want to use BDS, it should be used against the worst countries first, and Israel wouldn't even make the list.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2014, 11:15 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE7VjooxcP8#t=36

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2014, 06:32 AM
UN a Club in Need of Higher Standards (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/27699)
By Jonah Goldberg, 25 July 2014

“But evilness won’t get you kicked out of the U.N. Just ask North Korea. One need only review the repugnant record of the U.N. Human Rights Council (formerly the U.N. Commission on Human Rights), which for decades has served as a magnet for the world’s most vicious regimes. It’s a global version of what economists call “regulatory capture.” The worst offenders don’t want to be chastised by the agency, so they take it over. These Legion of Doom nations then spend most of their time condemning Israel as a way to pander to their domestic populations and take the focus off themselves. Since 2006, the UNHRC has condemned Israel nearly 50 times – far more than Syria, Sudan, North Korea, Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, Libya and Iran combined. Feel free to criticize Israel, but if you think its human rights record is worse – never mind vastly worse – than Syria’s or North Korea’s, you’re a fool.

Heck, the Chinese and the Russians – and before them, the Soviets – aren’t merely U.N. members, they are power brokers. As permanent members of the Security Council, they get to veto any proposal they want. The authority of the Security Council is derived entirely from military might, not moral right, which is why we’re on it, too.”

Rincewind
26-07-2014, 05:30 PM
Were a league of democracies created as Jonah describes. Then the US and Israel would have a hard time getting in on the criterion of "respect for individual liberty".

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2014, 04:53 AM
Were a league of democracies created as Jonah describes. Then the US and Israel would have a hard time getting in on the criterion of "respect for individual liberty".
True with America under the liberty-undermining Commissar Obamov, but Israel has full human rights for Arabs, Muslims, women, and homosexuals.

Capablanca-Fan
13-08-2014, 05:14 AM
The Left are hiding from the horrors (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_left_are_hiding_from_the_horrors/)
Miranda Devine, Telegraph, 12 August 2014

BEHOLD the brain explosions of cognitive dissonance as the apologist Left tries to ignore the images of Wiley Park native Khaled Sharrouf and his severed head-toting son. The convicted terrorist has taken his five children on a jihad tour of Syria to indoctrinate them into the savagery of the Islamic State.

“That’s my boy!” writes the proud father, tweeting a photograph of his seven-year-old son holding aloft the severed head of Syrian soldier with both little hands gripping the dead man’s short hair.

Exhibit B: Labor MPs Richard Marles and Andrew Leigh, who have trotted out the prepared line that terrorism isn’t a Muslim issue because the Oklahoma bomber was a Christian. This is a concerted Labor attempt to downplay Islamist extremism and the radicalisation which is occurring under their noses in their own electorates.

“Who knows where terrorism emanates from,” Marles, Labor’s shadow immigration minister, told Andrew Bolt on Channel Ten on Sunday.

“You look at the Oklahoma bombings in the US. That was not an act of terror carried out by anybody of Islamic faith.”

Labor’s assistant treasury spokesman Andrew Leigh said much the same: “We need to celebrate the Australian Muslim community to recognise that there are many peoples of different faiths in the world and extremism comes in all sorts of guises. The Oklahoma bombing was carried out by a Christian.”

It’s a ridiculous diversion and blind nonsense.

Timothy McVeigh, the former soldier who blew up a US government building in Oklahoma City in 1995, was a radical libertarian, a secular humanist and a follower of science. But he was not a Christian. In a 2001 Time Magazine interview before he was executed, McVeigh was at pains to distance himself from his Christian upbringing: “I was raised Catholic. Through my military years I lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up. However I do maintain core beliefs.”

Asked if he believed in God he said: “I do believe in a God.”

Christians believe in one God, not “a God”.

Unlike the ISIS fanatics, McVeigh never claimed religion as a motivator, although he did once say “science is my religion”. All of which shows he was a nutter, but not a Christian nutter.

In any case the whole argument is a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the obvious link between militant Islam and terrorism. The fact that it comes from the alternative government is a worrying sign that Labor is burying its head in the sand.

Rincewind
13-08-2014, 10:11 AM
I thought Miranda Devine was educated. I guess I was wrong.

"One God" and "a God" are 100% syntactically equivalent.

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2014, 12:38 AM
I thought Miranda Devine was educated. I guess I was wrong.

"One God" and "a God" are 100% syntactically equivalent.
Not serious. "A god" could be one of a number of gods.

Desmond
14-08-2014, 07:25 AM
True or false: Christians believe in a god?

Rincewind
14-08-2014, 09:44 AM
Not serious. "A god" could be one of a number of gods.

So could one god, Moron.

Rincewind
14-08-2014, 09:59 AM
For the uneducated who don't know that "a" and "one" are essentially the same thing, here is a reasonably honest look at Timothy McVeigh's beliefs...

An Accurate Look at Timothy McVeigh's Beliefs (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate-look-at-timothy-mcveighs-beliefs-cms-15532)
Bruce Prescott

...

In addition to denying Christian extremism, Farah and his blogging buddies are distorting the record regarding the beliefs of Timothy McVeigh. They contend that McVeigh distanced himself from Christianity in an interview he gave to Time magazine in 2001.

Did he? Here's what he said:

Time: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.

All this text discloses is that McVeigh distanced himself from Catholicism, not Christianity. It also reveals that he did not want to discuss his faith further because he knew most people would find it repulsive. What was repulsive about his faith? Was he an atheist? No. Was he a secular humanist? No.

...

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2014, 12:26 PM
The intro is in Hebrew, but Melanie Phillips' interview is in English. As usual, she clears away the fog of antisemitism, and shows what is behind the animalistic hate that is raging toward Israel today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzPrVXT6tQ4&feature=youtu.be&list=UUKqFqiCe1dCUxRe0_YNZ6gg

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2014, 12:43 PM
Hardly surprising that Christ-hater RW is desperate to portray McVeigh as a Christian. But in a letter the day before he was executed (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4):


McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.

In the 2001 book American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh & The Oklahoma City Bombing by journalists Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, based on hours of interviews with the thug, Michel said:


McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he won't rule out the possibility. I asked him, ‘What if there is a heaven and hell?’
He said that once he crosses over the line from life to death, if there is something on the other side, he will -- and this is using his military jargon – ‘adapt, improvise, and overcome.’ Death to him is all part of the adventure.

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2014, 12:43 PM
So could one god, Moron.

Not only one God, cretin.

Rincewind
14-08-2014, 02:55 PM
Not only one God, cretin.

You added "only", Douchebag.

Capablanca-Fan
15-08-2014, 03:59 AM
Ayan Hirsi Ali: Bibi Netanyahu deserves Nobel Peace Prize for Gaza campaign (http://www.salon.com/2014/08/04/ayan_hirsi_ali_bibi_netanyahu_deserves_nobel_peace _prize_for_gaza_campaign/)
The public intellectual and controversial atheist thinks the man waging war on Gaza is a paragon of peace
ELIAS ISQUITH, Salon, 4 August 2014


Ali said she admired Netanyahu “[b]ecause he is under so much pressure, from so many sources, and yet he does what is best for the people of Israel, he does his duty.”

“I really think he should get the Nobel Peace Prize,” Ali added. “In a fair world he would get it.”

Ali isn’t the only prominent supporter of Israel’s war to make the provocative Nobel Peace Prize claim. Recently, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, said the nation’s army, the Israeli Defense Forces, similarly deserved global acclaim for the “unimaginable restraint” with which it’s waged its attacks on Hamas.

Desmond
15-08-2014, 05:40 PM
The intro is in Hebrew, but Melanie Phillips' interview is in English. As usual, she clears away the fog of antisemitism, and shows what is behind the animalistic hate that is raging toward Israel today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzPrVXT6tQ4&feature=youtu.be&list=UUKqFqiCe1dCUxRe0_YNZ6ggIf the whole "talking head" thing doesn't work out, she would make a great Silver Surfer.

Capablanca-Fan
18-08-2014, 04:23 AM
I don’t like Jews because…. (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-dont-like-jews-because/)
AUGUST 11, 2014


...
It bothers me that the Jews won’t listen to the UN and the Human Rights Organisations. I mean come on – they are an organisation for human rights! Since the UN was formed, they have ensured that no genocides or massacres or human rights violations have taken place. And most importantly they haven’t been biased at all – like I said, they’re the UN and represent all countries in the world. They are tough on everyone!

I also don’t like the Jews because they are just so aggressive. They attacked the Palestinians in Gaza for no reason at all. They were merely watching television and tending their flocks when the Jews just attacked them! I mean, don’t they understand that Hamas looks out for its entire people? Don’t these stubborn Jews understand that the Jews can rely on the unity government of the Palestinian Authority including Hamas to look after their rights? I mean before Israel came along, the world was great for the Jews!

I also don’t like the Jews because they planned the 9/11 attacks. The Arab media said so and surely they wouldn’t lie – they have a good record.
...

Since some of the anti-semites here wouldn't get the above sarcasm, here is a non-sarcastic piece:


Would you believe us if we said that the best litmus test of any society's success is its attitude towards Israel? Well, it's true. As George Gilder explains, whether a society envies and resents Israel's success or celebrates and tries to replicate it is indicative of that society's progress. Countries that "pass" the "Israel Test" tend to rise. Those who don't tend to sink. So, does your society pass the "Israel Test"? In five minutes, find out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfN2IvnIA4M

Capablanca-Fan
18-08-2014, 07:20 AM
Kenneth Meshoe, member of the South African parliament, refutes slander that Israel is an apartheid state:


We all need to recognize that those who say that what is happening in Israel is like apartheid South Africa are minimizing the suffering that black South Africans endured. They are taking the sting out of the pain that we suffered in South Africa. If South African apartheid was what people are seeing in Israel, there would never have been any need for an armed struggle. There would never have been any need for a Nelson Mandela to go to prison because he would have all the rights Arabs in Israel have.

There are judges in the Israel courts who are not Jewish by birth. In apartheid South Africa, you could never have had something like that. You have teachers who are not Jewish who are teaching Jewish children. These non-Jews in Israel have everything that we non-whites in apartheid South Africa never shared with white South Africans.

Most South Africans know this. They know that to call Israel an apartheid state is false; that what we suffered in South Africa is not being suffered by anybody in Israel.

But to those South Africans who believe these falsehoods about Israel we say, "Go to Israel, go and see for yourself. Tell us where you see Palestinians having to endure what we endured during Apartheid."

As a member of South Africa’s parliament, and in the name of millions of my fellow black citizens of that country – we who know what apartheid really was -- I ask those in United States, Europe and anywhere else in the world who charge Israel with practicing apartheid to please stop doing so. You are damaging the truth, you are damaging any chance for peace in the Middle East, and most of all, you are destroying the memory of the real apartheid.

The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a lie about the real Israel and it is a lie about the real apartheid.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysOX1fTPA-A

antichrist
21-08-2014, 12:10 PM
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/feiglin-expels-arab-mks-who-call-idf-soldiers-murderers-video/2014/08/04/

Acting Knesset Speaker Moshe Feiglin removed the Fifth Column - temporarily....................................... ........but the visible anger of the Arab MKs and the reaction by MK Feiglin are worth 1,000 words. MK Ibrahim Sarsur started the action by citing Palestinian Authority Arabs who were “murdered” by IDF “heroes.” Feiglin pointed his arm at him and told him to leave the podium after repeating his accusation. Sarsur continued his rant, and Feiglin pointed in the direction of Knesset guards, who forcibly escorted the dishonorable Knesset Member out of the chamber. “Get out. Get out. Get out,” Feiglin told Sarsur, who got in his last licks by accusing Feiglin of “representing the Nazis.” “I announce to Knesset Members that anyone who labels soldier as murderers will not remain in the session, not even for a second,” Feiglin declared. Next up was Masud Ganaim, who said, “You butchered. You murdered. The army is an army of murderers, and you can expel me,” which Feiglin promptly did. ..................................

AC: with a leading war crime investigator saying he wants the Israeli Prime Minister in the war crimes dock next are the Arab parliamentary members'
claims so outlandish? Where is the freedom of speech in Israel? Not even in parliament apparently. If Israel does no want Arab members of parliament the Zionists should not have not stolen Arab-occupied land. Unless it wants total apartheid.

antichrist
21-08-2014, 02:19 PM
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-08-11-op-ed-being-jewish-opposing-human-rights-violations/#.U_Vw3fmSxsv

The South African national high school debating team, currently in Bangkok for the World Debating Championships, has come under attack for expressing solidarity with the people of Gaza during the tournament’s opening ceremony. The events of the past three days highlight a disturbing trend in the local Jewish community, one which every South African should be concerned about. By SAUL MUSKER.

On Wednesday evening, the team uploaded to Facebook a photograph of themselves wearing Keffiyehs (symbolic Palestinian scarves) and badges in the colours of Palestine. Their accompanying post read:

Team South Africa wearing Palestinian badges and Keffiyehs to show our opposition to the human rights violations carried out against the people of Palestine.

.................................................. ......................
To this [sic] ..cking retards that support the Palestinians...Me Brian Thomas Poczynski born in Argentina and Soldier at The IDF i hope that these people does't [sic] ever come to my country (Israel) because i will shoot them with my M16 and empty all my bullet [sic] on them!

Others expressed outrage that three of us on the team, all young Jews, should have betrayed the Zionist cause by speaking out in public:

You are idiots, an embarrassment to your faith. Get a life morons, stand up for your people or go join Hamas and see what they do to you. Idiots!!!

Similar comments mushroomed and proliferated as the controversy grew, with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of South African Jews posting statuses condemning the team in absolute terms. Those who came to our defence were treated to a similar fate. Jewish rage went rapidly viral.

Central to the debacle was the fact that one of the debaters is the deputy head boy of a Jewish high school in Johannesburg. The outcry was amplified by calls for his leadership positions to be stripped and even for his immediate expulsion, with claims that he had contradicted the school’s stated Zionist ethos. By the time of writing, a petition on change.org demanding that the school take action had gathered more than 1,000 signatures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC: when one's own people can see the error of your ways, that you are committing war crimes, then it is time to revisit your moral base and realise that 2014 is not 1944. that nothing remains static nor in a vacuum

antichrist
22-08-2014, 05:24 PM
Pres Obama re Islamic State forces: They have rampaged across cities and villages illing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They targets Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practise a different religion.

I cannot see how this differs in any way from what Zionist forces have done in Palestine for 70 years.

Capablanca-Fan
23-08-2014, 02:20 AM
Pres Obama re Islamic State forces: They have rampaged across cities and villages illing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They targets Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practise a different religion.

I cannot see how this differs in any way from what Zionist forces have done in Palestine for 70 years.
How about: because ISIS unlike Israel has rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practise a different religion.

antichrist
23-08-2014, 06:58 AM
How about: because ISIS unlike Israel has rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practise a different religion.

How is that different from what the Jewish Stern gang and others performed to steal the State of Isreal real estate in 1947? and still now any Jew (almost except the black ones) can settle in Israel but no one else without heaps of trouble. Example if an Israeli wants to marry a Filipina they put all sorts of bureaucratic obstacles in the way, their best trick is to demand documents that don't even exist therefore making it impossible. It was on Dateline a week ago, check it out. It is a racist, apartheid and sectarian state. Israel does not want peace so it can steal more land every day - even on the Sabbath. Completely against international law that Israel and USA refuse to recognise. There are the rogue and terrorist states just as guilty as ISIS because they have been at it for 70 years. ISIS only one year.

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2014, 07:31 AM
An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth (http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide?all=1)
A former AP correspondent explains how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters
By Matti Friedman|August 26, 2014


The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.

The Hamas charter, for example, calls not just for Israel’s destruction but for the murder of Jews and blames Jews for engineering the French and Russian revolutions and both world wars; the charter was never mentioned in print when I was at the AP, though Hamas won a Palestinian national election and had become one of the region’s most important players. To draw the link with this summer’s events: An observer might think Hamas’ decision in recent years to construct a military infrastructure beneath Gaza’s civilian infrastructure would be deemed newsworthy, if only because of what it meant about the way the next conflict would be fought and the cost to innocent people. But that is not the case. The Hamas emplacements were not important in themselves, and were therefore ignored. What was important was the Israeli decision to attack them.

antichrist
27-08-2014, 08:16 AM
An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth
A former AP correspondent explains how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters
By Matti Friedman|August 26, 2014


The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.

The Hamas charter, for example, calls not just for Israel’s destruction but for the murder of Jews and blames Jews for engineering the French and Russian revolutions and both world wars; the charter was never mentioned in print when I was at the AP, though Hamas won a Palestinian national election and had become one of the region’s most important players. To draw the link with this summer’s events: An observer might think Hamas’ decision in recent years to construct a military infrastructure beneath Gaza’s civilian infrastructure would be deemed newsworthy, if only because of what it meant about the way the next conflict would be fought and the cost to innocent people. But that is not the case. The Hamas emplacements were not important in themselves, and were therefore ignored. What was important was the Israeli decision to attack them.


Just as their religion makes them stupid your religion also makes you stupid. They can say whatever terrible things they want to but that is only hot air but if Israel keeps on ignoring Palestinians human rights who knows maybe in another 50 years there will be nuke bombs reigning down on all of Middle East, and that will make you happy coz End Days Armageddon has arrived - and all you brainwashed idiots on both sides will be rejoicing. It will only be the (leftish) liberal intellectuals who will cry for humanity. As they are the only ones crying now in Palestinian/Israel conflict. Extremist Zionist Jews and extremist Muslims don't care if their brothers are killed for their own fanaticism. The Zionists proved that during Nazi Germany when preferring that their brothers die rather than go to somewhere else not Israel (that did not even exist then). And Jewish liberal intellectuals are completely against Israeli Govt actions. They know what injustice and stupidity is.

Have answered very hurriedly must get some work done.

Rincewind
27-08-2014, 04:39 PM
about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

When did the Arab-Israeli conflict begin? Surely not before 1948, 66 years ago.

antichrist
27-08-2014, 09:40 PM
The unique difference of the Palestinian/Israel conflict is that it was caused by the United Nations. Hundreds of Palestinians towns and villages were wiped out for the greatest successful robbers of the 20th and 21st centuries. It was predicted at the time of the decision that there would be conflict for generations. Blame the Jewish Lobby

Capablanca-Fan
28-08-2014, 07:09 AM
When did the Arab-Israeli conflict begin? Surely not before 1948, 66 years ago.

Of course it did. There were Arabs massacring Jews before that, e.g. the Hebron Massacre of 23 August 23 1929 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html).

Capablanca-Fan
28-08-2014, 07:12 AM
The unique difference of the Palestinian/Israel conflict is that it was caused by the United Nations. Hundreds of Palestinians towns and villages were wiped out for the greatest successful robbers of the 20th and 21st centuries. It was predicted at the time of the decision that there would be conflict for generations. Blame the Jewish Lobby

Ah of course, the evil Jewish Lobby, the imaginary target of antisemites for a century. In any case:

Occupation of Cyprus Underscores Hypocrisy of Gaza Outrage (http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2014/08/14/occupation-of-cyprus-underscores-hypocrisy-of-gaza-outrage-n1878297/page/full)
Victor Davis Hanson | 14 Aug 2014

Thousands of settlers from Anatolia were shipped in by the Turkish government to occupy former Greek villages and to change Cypriot demography -- in the same manner the occupying Ottoman Empire once did in the 16th century. Not a single nation recognizes the legitimacy of the Turkish Cypriot state. In contrast, Greek Cyprus is a member of the European Union.

Why, then, is the world not outraged at an occupied Cyprus the way it is at, say, Israel?

Nicosia is certainly more divided than is Jerusalem. Thousands of Greek refugees lost their homes more recently, in 1974, than did the Palestinians in 1947.

Turkey has far more troops in Northern Cyprus than Israel has in the West Bank. Greek Cypriots, unlike Palestinians, vastly outnumbered their adversaries. Indeed, a minority comprising about a quarter of the island's population controls close to 40 percent of the landmass. Whereas Israel is a member of the U.N., Turkish Cyprus is an unrecognized outlaw nation.

Instead, accept that the Middle East is not just about a dispute over land. Israel is inordinately damned for what it supposedly does because its friends are few, its population is tiny, and its adversaries beyond Gaza numerous, dangerous and often powerful.

And, of course, because it is Jewish.

antichrist
28-08-2014, 09:20 AM
Of course it did. There were Arabs massacring Jews before that, e.g. the Hebron Massacre of 23 August 23 1929 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html).

Exactly, as shown in an Israeli film a few years ago, the European religious Jews, not the Arabic ethnic genuine Jew, came to Hebron and treated all and sundry like poop - that is all natives regardless brand of god-worshipping. So the non-Jewish Arabs turned against them. Just as they up risen against European religious Jews coming to Palestine and doing the same since 1947. What European Jews have done since 1947 in Israel leaves in no doubt how they could treat Arabs prior to that.

From your link: Hebron had up until this time been outwardly peaceful, although tensions hid below the surface. The Sephardi Jewish community (Jews who were originally from Spain, North Africa and Arab countries) in Hebron had lived quietly with its Arab neighbors for centuries. Theses Sephardi Jews spoke Arabic and had a cultural connection with the the Arabs of Hebron. In the mid-1800s, Ashkenazi (native European) Jews started moving to Hebron and, in 1925, the Slobodka Yeshiva - officially called the Yeshiva of Hevron Knesset Yisrael-Slobodka - was opened.

AC: so strictly speaking the Arabs were not being anti-Semitic or anti genuine Jew, but against an European invasion that treated them like poop.

Rincewind
28-08-2014, 10:12 AM
Of course it did. There were Arabs massacring Jews before that, e.g. the Hebron Massacre of 23 August 23 1929 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html).

Were they Israelis?

antichrist
28-08-2014, 10:35 AM
Were they Israelis?

Don't you know they were Israelites even they were in way no related to the people of Israel, they were Ashkenazi (native European) Jews

And you should shudder with reverence every time that word is mentioned.

Rincewind
28-08-2014, 10:39 AM
Don't you know they were Israelites even they were in way no related to the people of Israel, they were Ashkenazi (native European) Jews

The point is the Author said 120k dead from the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now the figure is about right but I question the time period of 100 years. There can be an Arab-Jewish conflict but no Arab-Israeli conflict before 1948. In fact the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is normally taken to be the starting point of hostilities. If Hanson is using some unconventional terminology then he should be up front about it and come up with a more descriptive name for what he is considering.

antichrist
28-08-2014, 11:18 AM
Terrorist experts will tell you that if not for the Israel issue the Islamic terrorism would not have hardly any traction. It has been a festering sore for 70 years that the world refuses to face. The UN created the problem, sponsored by Oz Dr Evatt, but refuses to fix it, i.e., enforce right of return etc., which by the way would mean the destruction of the State of Israel because they would have to give almost all the land back. I would love to see that. What a con story that God gave it to them - pull the other one.

antichrist
29-08-2014, 11:09 AM
ISIS has been described by Abbot and others as the worse mob ever but who are they really. Before the Western powers carved up the Ottoman Empire there were 3 distinct areas of present Iraq. A Sunni area, a Shiite area and a Kurd area. The Western powers lumped all these traditional enemies whatever together. So there has been strife ever since. The ISIS are only succeeding because they are operating in their own sectarian area, that even may co-incide with their tribal area more than likely. So just like Palestinain/Israeli conflict, it is created by the Western powers and the UN that is also controlled by Western powers and other non-Arabs. But it is the ARabs who get all the bad press for nothing more than nationalism.

And what is OZ, Britain and the USA record - stealing whole continents from native peoples

antichrist
29-08-2014, 01:04 PM
Analogy Time.

Now lets draw an analogy with Scotland which is now having an election. The Celtics of "Celtics Isles" were invaded by Vikings. Afterwards many Vikings (now English) disperse for example to USA and Australia (the Diaspora). Centuries later the Diaspora (English) later wish (due to mainly religious reasons) to return to Celtic Isles and boot off the remainder Celts, to Ireland for example. Through diplomatic efforts (and Holocaust), and through terrorism manage to boot a million out that become refugees. As well water resources and all good land is taken by the Diaspora. Would the United Nations and world community accept this? Well they did in Palestine!!

Now you tell me.

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2014, 04:50 AM
Not so. The Jews turned Palestine from deserts, salty soils, and malarial swamps to productive land. This drew many Arabs into the area, and opened opportunities for Arab farms and businesses, increasing the Arab population sevenfold. So it was thanks to the Jews that Arabs could settle in what is now Israel. Jordan had more of an otherwise similar land, but no Jews, so could not support as high a population density of Arabs.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfN2IvnIA4M

antichrist
30-08-2014, 11:09 AM
Jono from above:
Not so. The Jews turned Palestine from deserts, salty soils, and malarial swamps to productive land. This drew many Arabs into the area, and opened opportunities for Arab farms and businesses, increasing the Arab population sevenfold. So it was thanks to the Jews that Arabs could settle in what is now Israel. Jordan had more of an otherwise similar land, but no Jews, so could not support as high a population density of Arabs.

AC: there is documentary evidence from British officials at the time that completely contradict this Israel lie. But regardless, even if this was so, it is completely no justification for the stealing of Palestinian land. If you were to bash your missus (whom I adore btw) does that justify me coming over evicting you and your missus and stealing your land? Not likely hey.

Zionism is nothing but robbery and genocide supposedly sanctioned by a god who does not even exist.

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2014, 11:58 PM
Senator Milne’s apparent solution to ISIS barbarism: Let their victims die (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/senator-milnes-apparent-solution-to-isis-barbarism-let-their-victims-die/story-fni0ffxg-1227042954165)
ANDREW BOLT HERALD SUN 31 August 2014


I HAVE a question for Greens leader Christine Milne about what she agrees is the “slaughter of innocent people” in Iraq and Syria.

So, Senator, what would you have us do?

I ask politely — no abuse, no anger — because what you said last week struck me as so horrible and heartless that there must be some mistake.

Senator, I must have misunderstood you.

You cannot possibly be so dead to what you say are the “images of barbaric behaviour” we’ve all seen from the Islamic State.

You cannot possibly mean what I understood you to say: Let them die.

Let the men be decapitated or crucified.

Let the women be raped and sold into slavery.

Let us not answer the screams for help from Christians, Yazidis, Shi’ites and Sunnis the jihadists deem not sufficiently devout.

Let our soldiers and airmen stay at home, watching on TV the astonishing cruelty they know they could stop if you would let them.

Am I right, Senator Milne? Is that what you really mean?

Then Greens try to force debate on Iraq (http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/national/2014/09/01/greens-try-to-force-debate-on-iraq.html) 1 September 2014:

Opposition defence spokesman Stephen Conroy dismissed the Greens' move as “a stunt to score cheap political points.”

antichrist
04-09-2014, 08:28 AM
Surely we are treading in dangerous waters by pandering to the interests of corporate america.


AC:
AC: SIC exactly the same sentiments could be voiced about you unknowingly pandering to the interests of Zionist Genocidist Israel





SIC
Rincewind what you must remember is that we're all someones daughter, we're all someones son.

How long can we look at each other down the barrel of a gun ?

This time we know we can stand together with the power to be powerful, believing we can make it better.

I hope these sentiments can be echoed.
I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

AC: The Palestinians living in refugee camps and being bombed for 70 years could have exactly the same sentiment

Patrick Byrom
04-09-2014, 01:37 PM
Senator Milne’s apparent solution to ISIS barbarism: Let their victims die (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/senator-milnes-apparent-solution-to-isis-barbarism-let-their-victims-die/story-fni0ffxg-1227042954165)
ANDREW BOLT HERALD SUN 31 August 2014


I HAVE a question for Greens leader Christine Milne about what she agrees is the “slaughter of innocent people” in Iraq and Syria.
So, Senator, what would you have us do?
I ask politely — no abuse, no anger — because what you said last week struck me as so horrible and heartless that there must be some mistake.
Senator, I must have misunderstood you.
You cannot possibly be so dead to what you say are the “images of barbaric behaviour” we’ve all seen from the Islamic State.
You cannot possibly mean what I understood you to say: Let them die.
Let the men be decapitated or crucified.
Let the women be raped and sold into slavery.
Let us not answer the screams for help from Christians, Yazidis, Shi’ites and Sunnis the jihadists deem not sufficiently devout.
Let our soldiers and airmen stay at home, watching on TV the astonishing cruelty they know they could stop if you would let them.
Am I right, Senator Milne? Is that what you really mean?

Would you and Bolt extend this argument to every other country where people are being slaughtered?


Then Greens try to force debate on Iraq (http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/national/2014/09/01/greens-try-to-force-debate-on-iraq.html) 1 September 2014:
Opposition defence spokesman Stephen Conroy dismissed the Greens' move as “a stunt to score cheap political points.”
But why shouldn't our parliament debate this issue?

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2014, 11:19 AM
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and RW's hero, gets this one right (http://63.146.172.78/PresRele/IslME_62/4877_62.htm): “The Hamas credo is not just anti-Israel, but profoundly anti-Semitic with racism at its core. The Hamas Charter reads like a modern-day Mein Kampf.”

Rincewind
05-09-2014, 02:00 PM
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and RW's hero...

I should point out that Abe Foxman seems like a reasonable guy but he is not my hero. But most regular readers will know that a lot of what Jono says is just BS.

antichrist
05-09-2014, 09:17 PM
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and RW's hero, gets this one right (http://63.146.172.78/PresRele/IslME_62/4877_62.htm): “The Hamas credo is not just anti-Israel, but profoundly anti-Semitic with racism at its core. The Hamas Charter reads like a modern-day Mein Kampf.”

Well Israel help sponsor them to break up Yasser Arafat's leadership of the PLO - so Israel got what it asked for. Ask and they shall receive. The Hebrew Torah also sounds like the original and Mein Kampf copied it. Funny how what's round goes around - whatever the saying

antichrist
13-09-2014, 06:52 AM
KB re Scottish vote on independence:
Even EU blow-ins who are resident can vote!

AC: so a M/E analogy would be if Israel continues to bomb, kill and drive Palestinians out of West Bank so that the Zionist land-robbing settlers become a majority, then hold a vote of Palestinian independence that gets voted down and that is supposed to be democracy? What a joke

Capablanca-Fan
13-09-2014, 01:24 PM
What does he think they are? Mormons?

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2014, 01:53 PM
Hmmm, Capablanca-Fan seems quite quick to disclaim groups or individuals that claim to be Christian if he does not think they are. But if a group claims to be Islam and is nasty then it must be?

Capablanca-Fan
14-09-2014, 02:58 PM
Hmmm, Capablanca-Fan seems quite quick to disclaim groups or individuals that claim to be Christian if he does not think they are. But if a group claims to be Islam and is nasty then it must be?

Of course, this can go the other way, But while I am well-informed about what Christianity means, many of those saying that about Islamic groups are clueless about Islam and contradict high-ranking imams or other Muslim experts.

antichrist
14-09-2014, 04:19 PM
Of course, this can go the other way, But while I am well-informed about what Christianity means, many of those saying that about Islamic groups are clueless about Islam and contradict high-ranking imams or other Muslim experts.

But surely anyone can read what is in black and white whether in in OT, NW or Koran? Too much interpretation should not be necessary otherwise it points to a deceitful god who is prepared for simple people to be fooled on matters as serious as salvation.

antichrist
14-09-2014, 06:36 PM
I can't see any real difference between aims and means of Islamic State and Jewish State. Both use terror, are sectarian and want territory. The Zionist /Jewish terrorists also killed British, in fact many of them, just as IS have killed a Brit now.

Just as Islamic bods are coming from around world into conflict well young Jews are going from around world to commit war crimes in Palestine.

antichrist
16-09-2014, 05:26 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/israeli-intelligence-reservists-refuse-serve-palestinian-territories

Israeli intelligence veterans refuse to serve in Palestinian territories
Innocent people under military rule exposed to surveillance by Israel, say 43 ex-members of Unit 8200, including reservists
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole story is shocking and well worth reading. These honest veterans can see what a whole criminal facade that Zionism is and facist means it must use to keep control of a completely innocent people just struggling for their rights for the past 70 years.

antichrist
16-09-2014, 05:41 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/israeli-refuseniks-are-criminals-defence-minister
Now those same reservists are to be treated as criminals

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2014, 03:07 AM
The Mizrahi story can end the colonialist myth (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-mizrahi-story-can-end-the-colonialist-myth/)
LYN JULIUS, 15 September 2014


We want people to ask why these Jews ended up in Israel. They did not move to Israel only out of Zionism, although this was a factor : the majority fled their countries as refugees – out of fear, to escape harassment, violence and death.

They fled the same conditions of intolerance and bigotry that are now forcing the other non-Muslim minorities of the Middle East to choose between extinction or exodus.

We must turn the Israel-as-colonialism narrative on its head. We must re-assert that Jews are the most ancient of indigenous Middle Eastern peoples, with a history of continuous residence in what is now known as the Arab world going back 3,000 years.

Moreover, the colonial relationship between Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews and the Arab Muslim conquerors is the exact opposite of what reporters and western observers believe: the Jews of the region are the colonised and the Muslims the colonisers. For fourteen centuries, Jews survived at the beck and sufferance of their Muslim rulers. As the historian Georges Bensoussan has explained, they sought to escape insecurity as a vulnerable minority and their second-rate status by seeking western protection and embracing modernity.

The state of Israel, although under attack since the day it was born, has provided Jews with the wherewithal to defend themselves. This is an affront to Muslim pride and supremacy, and a key reason why the Arab/ Islamist struggle to destroy the sovereign Jewish state continues.

antichrist
17-09-2014, 09:39 PM
The reason why the Muslims, and other Arabs, are against the Jewish state because their hundreds of villages and towns were taken over by the robbing genocidist Zionists. The Arab Jews come from back of present day back of Iraq, the non Arab Jews are only converts to a religion who have no land rights to anywhere in the Middle East. Yes the Arab Jews do go back 3,0000 years but they were still just robbers and murderers in Palestine from back of Iraq, read about it in Joshua's Longest Day thread. A so called god making them the Chosen People and giving anyone any thing is nothing but a con job - by having that attitude no wonder they are creating enemies.

Capablanca-Fan
18-09-2014, 01:33 AM
At the UN, the Israeli ambassador began: "Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses: When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath!' Moses removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water.

When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Palestinian had stolen them!"

The Palestinian representative at the UN jumped up furiously and shouted, "What are you talking about? The Palestinians weren't there then."

The Israeli representative smiled and said, "And now that you have made that clear, I will begin my speech."

antichrist
18-09-2014, 10:22 PM
At the UN, the Israeli ambassador began: "Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses: When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath!' Moses removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water.

When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Palestinian had stolen them!"

The Palestinian representative at the UN jumped up furiously and shouted, "What are you talking about? The Palestinians weren't there then."

The Israeli representative smiled and said, "And now that you have made that clear, I will begin my speech."

Where and when was the rock that Moses struck - and it hope it was not with his head, I become suspicious when they start getting blood out of stone

In case you do not answer, it is in the Old Testament that the Hebrews came to Palestine from the eastern suburbs and raided the joint, so what else is knew

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2014, 11:18 PM
I suggest that Britain First are - albeit on a small scale and thus far non-lethally - Christian terrorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_First

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2014, 11:34 PM
I suggest that Britain First are - albeit on a small scale and thus far non-lethally - Christian terrorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_First

I suggest that "non-lethal terrorist" is an oxymoron, and underplays the horrors of genuine terrorism. As far as your cited Wiki article is concerned, they are non-violent as well. Islamists in Britain have been far from non-violent, e.g. Britain First has reminded people of the brutal Murder of Lee Rigby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby). One thing that feminist should applaud but of course don't care about is:


In July 2014, Britain First entered the Crayford Mosque in South London, demanding that its segregated entrances be removed, with Golding saying, "When you respect women we’ll respect your mosques."

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2014, 12:02 AM
I suggest that "non-lethal terrorist" is an oxymoron, and underplays the horrors of genuine terrorism.

I state as fact that that is false. Terrorism is by no means necessarily lethal - the use of violence or force against person or property to create fear or terror is quite enough to qualify. The vast majority of acts of eco-terrorism are non-lethal (consisting frequently of arson, vandalism, and tree-spiking) yet eco-terrorism is a widely accepted concept.

Of course, Britain First are not terrorists on the same scale as ISIL or al-Qaeda, or even many other terrorists. But that does not disqualify them from the term.


As far as your cited Wiki article is concerned, they are non-violent as well.

Violence is not even a necessary prerequisite for terrorism either. The group invades the property of others - mosques - for purposes for which it knows it is unwelcome, in order to harass believers. In the libertarian viewpoints of which you are somewhat selectively fond, an act of trespass is an act of violence against the property-owner.


Islamists in Britain have been far from non-violent

A minority have been far from non-violent. That's irrelevant to the question of whether some of their opponents are also terrorists. Plus it is quite clear that some of these "Christian" nutter groups oppose not just Islamism, but Islam.


One thing that feminist should applaud but of course don't care about is:


In July 2014, Britain First entered the Crayford Mosque in South London, demanding that its segregated entrances be removed, with Golding saying, "When you respect women we’ll respect your mosques."

I am sure you would have absolutely the reverse view if gay marriage supporters physically invaded a church demanding that it conduct same-sex marriages, and with same-sex marriage supporters saying "When you respect gay people we'll respect your churches".

From a libertarian feminist viewpoint, provided a woman is not coerced to attend a mosque then if she chooses to participate in a religious ceremony that insists on gender segregation that is her business and not that of the law. And certainly not that of someone who would invade that religious space while being unwelcome there in order to make a deeply hypocritical attempt at a point.

Rincewind
20-09-2014, 12:11 AM
From a libertarian feminist viewpoint, provided a woman is not coerced to attend a mosque then if she chooses to participate in a religious ceremony that insists on gender segregation that is her business and not that of the law. And certainly not that of someone who would invade that religious space while being unwelcome there in order to make a deeply hypocritical attempt at a point.

Most "Christian" churches discriminate against women on some level. Most obviously through exclusion at some level from the clergy.

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2014, 12:14 AM
Britain First are in an especially dubious position to bang on about respecting women when they are deeply anti-abortion.

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2014, 12:45 AM
I state as fact that that is false. Terrorism is by no means necessarily lethal - the use of violence or force against person or property to create fear or terror is quite enough to qualify. The vast majority of acts of eco-terrorism are non-lethal (consisting frequently of arson, vandalism, and tree-spiking) yet eco-terrorism is a widely accepted concept.
OK, but what is the most terror/fear-inducing action that BF has committed?


Of course, Britain First are not terrorists on the same scale as ISIL or al-Qaeda, or even many other terrorists. But that does not disqualify them from the term. Friends of yours?
Never heard of them before your post.


Violence is not even a necessary prerequisite for terrorism either. The group invades the property of others - mosques - for purposes for which it knows it is unwelcome, in order to harass believers. In the libertarian viewpoints of which you are somewhat selectively fond, an act of trespass is an act of violence against the property-owner.
That is true. Protesting outside a mosque on public land is allowed though.


A minority have been far from non-violent.
That wasn't clear from the page you cited.


That's irrelevant to the question of whether some of their opponents are also terrorists. Plus it is quite clear that some of these "Christian" nutter groups oppose not just Islamism, but Islam.
Since Islamism is a widely held view held in Islam in both leadership and grass roots.


I am sure you would have absolutely the reverse view if gay marriage supporters physically invaded a church demanding that it conduct same-sex marriages, and with same-sex marriage supporters saying "When you respect gay people we'll respect your churches".
Invading private property is wrong. Some gays have done just this, although now there is an injunction in the USA against this (http://theaquilareport.com/gay-activists-that-invaded-michigan-church-lose-to-the-rule-of-law/):


Federal law imposes penalties upon anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”

The same protections should apply to mosques.


From a libertarian feminist viewpoint,
Another pair of words that don't go together. Simone de Beauvoir, infamous feminazi talking to fellow feminazi Betty Friedanm explicitly wanted to restrict women's freedoms:


No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.


provided a woman is not coerced to attend a mosque then if she chooses to participate in a religious ceremony that insists on gender segregation that is her business and not that of the law. And certainly not that of someone who would invade that religious space while being unwelcome there in order to make a deeply hypocritical attempt at a point.
Some Muslim women are coerced. Atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali has herself experienced plenty of coercion in that respect (http://theahafoundation.org/), and tries to draw attention to Islamist coercion of females.


Britain First are in an especially dubious position to bang on about respecting women when they are deeply anti-abortion.

Not at all, since girl babies are aborted much more often than boy babies.

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2014, 01:35 AM
OK, but what is the most terror/fear-inducing action that BF has committed?

I don't know that they've done anything worse than invading mosques to harass and vilify believers. They have also set up some "Christian patrols" where they drive around as if they are a military group harassing Muslims. Mostly they seem like a bunch of silly trolls.


Never heard of them before your post.

Yes, I redacted that flippant question after seeing your comment against such parties on the other thread.


That wasn't clear from the page you cited.

Probably because I wasn't talking about Islamists. I don't see it as necessary whenever condemning a group to note whether there are opposing groups that are worse, especially not when that is common knowledge.


Another pair of words that don't go together.

Oh they can. Just not a dimension so often stressed because of the number of competing forms of feminism that criticise libertarianism and/or classical liberalism.


Some Muslim women are coerced.

Indeed and coercion within Muslim communities in the west should not be tolerated or ignored.


Not at all, since girl babies are aborted much more often than boy babies.

Unborn female fetuses are not women. In any case, while sex-selective abortion is a significant issue in some nations and some populations within other nations, if it was endemic everywhere we would be seeing a dramatically male-skewing population ratio. We're not.

Capablanca-Fan
20-09-2014, 02:46 AM
I don't know that they've done anything worse than invading mosques to harass and vilify believers.
The invasion is wrong; peaceful protests outside the mosque would not be.


They have also set up some "Christian patrols" where they drive around as if they are a military group harassing Muslims. Mostly they seem like a bunch of silly trolls.
Agreed.


Oh they can. Just not a dimension so often stressed because of the number of competing forms of feminism that criticise libertarianism and/or classical liberalism.
Feminism normally goes with government force force private employers to "equal pay for equal work" and female quotas etc. An ordinary libertarian would support the right of an employer to hire whoever he or she wants, and oppose government restrictions against hiring women.


Unborn female fetuses are not women.
The female fetus is the same sort of being as the gravida carrying her, just at a less advanced stage of development. (See, I can use medicalese like "gravida" for the pregnant woman if you insist on medicalese terms like "fetus".)


In any case, while sex-selective abortion is a significant issue in some nations and some populations within other nations, if it was endemic everywhere we would be seeing a dramatically male-skewing population ratio. We're not.
It is a real problem in India and China. Feminists have no basis to whinge: they support abortion on demand, i.e. for any reason or none, so they can't complain if the reason is "it's a girl".

Note also, a higher proportion of women are pro-life than men, so why should a pro-life stance be considered disrespectful to women?

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2014, 12:57 PM
The invasion is wrong; peaceful protests outside the mosque would not be.

Peaceful protests outside the mosque - assuming they are not in some way intimidatory and do not obstruct access - are not under dispute here. Likewise I assume you would have no problem with peaceful pro-Islamic protests outside churches.


Feminism normally goes with government force force private employers to "equal pay for equal work" and female quotas etc. An ordinary libertarian would support the right of an employer to hire whoever he or she wants, and oppose government restrictions against hiring women.

This varies though. The range of women self-defining as "feminist" is not so broad that all support all these things.


The female fetus is the same sort of being as the gravida carrying her, just at a less advanced stage of development.

It doesn't matter. The issue as defined by Britain First in their own words is respect for "women", not respect for the supposed "same sort of being" as women "at a less advanced stage of development". Many women would feel disrespected by Britain First's views on abortion, and rightly so.


It is a real problem in India and China.

China being a special case because of state-enforced limits on reproduction.


Note also, a higher proportion of women are pro-life than men, so why should a pro-life stance be considered disrespectful to women?

That is not the case everywhere, eg a Crosby-Textor survey for Australia in 2010 did not find significant gender differences.

Respecting women involves respecting both the choice to have an abortion and the choice not to. It does not mean upholding the views of those women (a minority anyway) who would support denying that choice to other women.

antichrist
22-09-2014, 04:46 PM
No name calling, no hatred, no political agenda.


CANADIAN COMMENT APPEARS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE AND IS MEANINGFUL.

THERE IS ALSO SOME RECENTLY ADDED BRITISH COMMENT.

This pilot hit the nail right on the head in his open letter.

A newspaper stated that some Muslim doctor is saying we are profiling him because he has been checked three times while getting on an airplane.

The following is a letter from a pilot. This well-spoken man, who is a pilot with American Airlines, says what is in his heart, beautifully.


YOU WORRY ME!

By Captain John Maniscalco, American Airlines Pilot

I've been trying to say this since 911, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.

I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.

On September 11, ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings, killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.

The Palestinians celebrated, the Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage, hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.

How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim Americans and the Arab/Muslim terrorists in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter MORE of the same good neighbors and children?

The events of September 11 changed the answer... It is not MY responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.

I want to know, I DEMAND to know and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America ..... Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation; that He will protect it and let it prosper? Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your Jihads? Are you thankful for the freedom that this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America?? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it

[rest snipped, too long - see rest at http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/worryme.asp - mod]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can and will make comments later, but airlines pilots are usually intelligent guys and should be able to figure out for himself why, when where who etc

Kevin Bonham
23-09-2014, 01:04 AM
I snipped that guff for wasting screen space but the original can be seen at http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/worryme.asp

The letter is old, dating from 2002. It has not been established whether it was even authentic.

As for the sentiment expressed it seems the author will consider Muslims to be suspected terrorists unless they differentiate themselves from terrorists with an overflowing of patriotic pride. But the author shows no sign of applying the same standard to WASPs who might be the next Timothy McVeigh or the next school shooter for all they know. If you're going to be scared of anyone who resembles a killer in some way, best be scared of everyone.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2014, 01:21 AM
Gazans Speak Out: Hamas War Crimes (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes)
by Mudar Zahran
September 19, 201

"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.

"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.

"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.

"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student

"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.

"We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money. We miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here." — S., graduate of an American university, former Hamas sympathizer.

The Israeli army sends warnings to people [Gazans] to evacuate buildings before an attack. The Israelis either call or send a text message. Sometimes they call several times to make sure everyone has been evacuated. Hamas's strict policy, though, was not to allow us to evacuate. Many people got killed, locked inside their homes by Hamas militants. Hamas's official Al-Quds TV regularly issued warnings to Gazans not to evacuate their homes. Hamas militants would block the exits to the places residents were asked to evacuate. In the Shijaiya area, people received warnings from the Israelis and tried to evacuate the area, but Hamas militants blocked the exits and ordered people to return to their homes. Some of the people had no choice but to run towards the Israelis and ask for protection for their families. Hamas shot some of those people as they were running; the rest were forced to return to their homes and get bombed. This is how the Shijaiya massacre happened. More than 100 people were killed. — S. a medical worker.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2014, 08:13 AM
‘Not Islamic’? (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/29348)
By Dennis Prager · Sep. 23, 2014

President Obama declared in his recent address to the nation that “ISIL is not Islamic.”

But how does he know? On what basis did the president of the United States declare the a group of Muslims that calls itself “Islamic State” “not Islamic”?

Has he studied Islam and Islamic history and concluded that ISIL, Boko Haram, al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Jamaat-e-Islami, Lashkar-e-Taiba (the group that slaughtered 166 people in Mumbai, most especially guests at the Taj Hotel,and which tortured to death a rabbi and his wife), the various Palestinian terrorist groups (all of which have been Muslim, even though there are many Christian Palestinians), and the Muslim terror groups in Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere are also all “not Islamic”?

Has he concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood, which won Egypt’s most open election ever, is “not Islamic?”

And what about Saudi Arabia? Is that country “not Islamic,” too?

Oh, and what about Iran? Also “not Islamic”?

Isn’t that a lot of Muslims, Muslim groups, and even nations – all of whom claim Islam as their religion – to dismiss as “not Islamic”?

To be fair, these baseless generalizations about what is and what is not Islamic started with his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who regularly announced that “Islam is a religion of peace.” And it is equally unlikely that his assertion came from a study of Islam and Islamic history.

The fact is that a study of Islamic history could not lead any fair-minded individual to conclude that all these Muslims and Islamic groups are “not Islamic.” Neither Islamic history, which, from its origins, offered vast numbers of people a choice between Islam and death, nor Islam as reflected in its greatest works, would lead one to draw that conclusion.

Rincewind
24-09-2014, 08:53 AM
The fact is that a study of Islamic history could not lead any fair-minded individual to conclude that all these Muslims and Islamic groups are “not Islamic.” Neither Islamic history, which, from its origins, offered vast numbers of people a choice between Islam and death, nor Islam as reflected in its greatest works, would lead one to draw that conclusion.

The same is true of Christianity and if a fair-minded individual was to look at Europe's long history of Jewish persecution one would conclude that Nazi Germany was indeed a Christian State.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2014, 10:19 AM
The same is true of Christianity and if a fair-minded individual was to look at Europe's long history of Jewish persecution one would conclude that Nazi Germany was indeed a Christian State.

More of RW's oft-refuted Christophobic mendacity (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link). And even his idol Clinton R. Dawkins disagrees with his revolting moral equivalence:


There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse. [Cited in Ruth Gledhill, Scandal and schism leave Christians praying for a ‘new Reformation’, The Times (UK), 2 April 2010.]

Kevin Bonham
24-09-2014, 04:15 PM
Tony Abbott has gone along with Obama and has called the group ISIL instead of "Islamic State" for the same reason.

Rincewind
24-09-2014, 11:17 PM
More of RW's oft-refuted Christophobic mendacity (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link). And even his idol Clinton R. Dawkins disagrees with his revolting moral equivalence:


There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse. [Cited in Ruth Gledhill, Scandal and schism leave Christians praying for a ‘new Reformation’, The Times (UK), 2 April 2010.]

Moronic equivalence from our resident buffoon.

His original article talked about "a study of [Islamic] history" the quote he refutes it with is clearly talking about contemporary practices. A study of history does include major Christian denominations that did believe that the penalty for apostasy is death. A penalty that was enforced on innumerable occasions.

Capablanca-Fan
25-09-2014, 03:53 AM
Tony Abbott has gone along with Obama and has called the group ISIL instead of "Islamic State" for the same reason.

What's the point? ISIL = Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Capablanca-Fan
25-09-2014, 04:22 AM
His original article talked about "a study of [Islamic] history" the quote he refutes it with is clearly talking about contemporary practices. A study of history does include major Christian denominations that did believe that the penalty for apostasy is death. A penalty that was enforced on innumerable occasions.

But hear Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin ask atheopath Penn Jillette, “Would the world be a better or a worse place if a billion Muslims became Evangelical Christians tomorrow?” Jillette had to admit, “Everything else being equal, I think yes.” Similar to the admission by RW's idol Dawkins.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXQMREfc-q0