Thanks for your reply. When was there a large neonazi attack? When was there an actual Klan attack? Sure, these were indeed big problems in the past, but *today* the incidence is negligible as far as I can see. So perhaps you'll point me to the organized wave of Klan attacks (since the Klan was formed by Democratic party members, which most Democrats don't know, you would expect the Democratic party holding the Senate and White House would lead to an uptake in attacks if the threats you mention were anything other than strawmen, yeah?)
In other words, you really don't want to have a debate over whether the Koran is more anti-freedom then your Holy Book.
My Holy Book is "Principia Mathematica" and subsequent works. So let's not go up the soft ad-hominem route shall we?
I think in your defense of Islam you seem to think that the Abrahamic religions are all equally bad. As an atheist I think they are all bullshit from an enlightened scientific perspective. However there are two massive flaws in your attempt at making them morally equivalent:
While Judaism and Christianity are barbaric in origin they are seen as mad-written by influence by God. They are susceptible to change and this is what has happened due to various reformations over the centuries. Hence it is a very long time since the Inquisition and stoning of adulterers and such. In short, these religions have moved on to be physically tolerant and fairly verbally tolerant too. These faiths also follow the law, "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" (meaning, Christians and Jews are not to extract retribution from those outside their faith). Judaism and Christianity are "personal faiths" that do not mandate a form of government, hence Church and State are separated.
Islam is *still* barbaric (eg. see the 20811 fatal Islamic attacks around the globe since 2001-09-11). The majority of Muslims (around 77% in a survey published recently) still want to impose the barbaric Sharia in the 21st Century. Muslims are commanded to exact retribution on Muslims and non-Muslims that don't follow Sharia. The Qur'an is claimed (falsely) to be the direct and unalterable word of Allah (clearly false since there are numerous versions, eg the Sa'ana Qur'an found in 1972) and attempting to change or challenge Islam is 'apostasy' and punishable by death (to be enacted by Muslims, *especially* family members). Islam is actually a *political idelogy* that mandates progression toward a particular form of Government (theocracy) with some superstitious stuff sprinkled on top - hence the any separation between Mosque and State is considered a temporary 'Milestone' stage on the way to theocracy.
I hope you can now see the fundamental difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One has a few barbaric commandments that are no longer listened to and claims no mandate over non-believers. Whereas Islam is a *political ideology* that claims political authority over Muslims and non-Muslims alike, has a great deal of violent and hateful beliefs as part of its mainstream *core* doctrine, and it actively carried out today (and historically has been directly responsible for at least 270 million deaths through personal and mass jihad).
Another interesting thing to note is that while Islam claims to be an Abrahamic faith, the reality is actually different. The attributes given to Allah (which is a title, not a personal name) in the Qur'an are *different* to the attributes given to YHWH/Jehovah by the Torah/Bible. For example, YHWH can never lie, yet the Qur'an states that Allah is the "Greatest of Deceivers". It is simply not possible for (the fictional) YHWH to be the same as the (equally fictional) Allah - despite what Islam claims. For a full analysis please see the following link: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
While drawing "moral equivalence" is a common tactic of apologists of Islam, the facts show that it is a fallacy - which I hope you can now see with the references and description I've given.
The 'terrorist' label is not implied racially nor ideologically as you imply. Terrorism is used when a person intends to cause 'terror' to the general populace.
So, devout Muslims who follow Sura 9:29 and want to subjugate and terrorize all non-Muslims in the world are correctly labelled terrorists - because their explicit aim is to terrorize.... and yes, the ideology of Islam really does hate you for your freedoms (which are 'haram' and against *mainstream* Islam).
Meanwhile, some loon who shoots cops is not a terrorist because their aim is to get at cops (or whatever their grudge may be) and not to 'terrorize' the general population.
Can you see the difference now? it is not racism or anti-Islamism that makes one action terrorism and another not. It is the aims and the methods that make it terrorism. It is simply politically correct indoctrination that tries to conflate racism with the fight against terrorism. Please don't do that, it is immoral to support terrorists whose aim is to hurt and intimidate *civilians*.
You cannot call this 'sedition' and still claim to follow the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is specifically designed for exactly the purpose the NRA are stating - this is patriotism, not sedition. As far as the US Constitution is concerned 'sedition' is essentially that activity the current US Administration is undertaking whereby it is bypassing the legislature to enact 'Executive Orders' that achieve anti-Constitutional goals. Of course many in the US don't see or notice this because they mainstream media appears to supporting the bypassing of the Constitution when it doesn't align with their goals (which are socialist in nature - they talk about 'individual freedom' but are actually all for the Government dictating what is 'politically correct' for you to do; this is the anti-thesis of liberty for the smallest minority of all, the *individual*).
I used to be a believer in gun control except the NRA pointed out how anti-Constitutional this is (and I strongly support the US Constitution, despite not being a US citizen). Then we have more practical matters, such as the fact that of the gun deaths each year 2/3 are self-inflicted suicides (if guns were not available then these people would still find a way, perhaps even more messy). Of the remaining ten thousand or so tragic deaths it is pretty safe to say there are *none* committed by NRA members. In fact, most of the deaths are caused by handguns (not by AR-15 and the like) and by criminals who have no license for the weapon (so adding more laws simply won't change that figure). What is really amazing and not reported in the media, is that good people with firearms prevent over *one hundred thousand* instances of crime because they present a firearm in their own defense (with around 2% of these weapons actually needing to be discharged). You must ask yourself, why are the media not reporting the true statistics? why is the Obama Administration not reporting these true statistics, that in a cost-benefit analysis the Second Amendment saves more lives than are taken by criminals with unlicensed weapons? why isn't it emphasized that murderous rampages are only stopped when someone, usually citizens, shoots the madman dead? why should police have a monopoly in defending citizens who are keen to defend themselves (and would rather the police arrive to interview the surviving gun owner than merely investigate the bodies left by armed criminals)? why are the statistics not used for sensible and well-informed debate?
The answer comes back to this, the current Administration is exploiting tragedies to further its agenda in disarming the populace. Once the populace is disarmed they cannot resist the will of the Government. Instead of the citizens being the masters and the Government implementing the will of the people (or their representatives) the situation will be reversed (the citizens serve the Government). The NRA are probably much more aware of history than you are. When Hitler, Stalin etc got into power one of the first things they do was disarm the population. Socialists always do that, because it means the populace has no effective means of resisting the socialist Government. The NRA are correct in this debate and have history and the US Constitution on their side. Can you bring yourself to admit that perhaps some rednecks know more history than you do and perhaps understand the implications of the Obama Administration's "think of the children" agenda to dismember the Constitution? Amazing isn't it? So, if you care about preserving the current liberties in the US (you know, what Conservatives like to do, despite the caricatures the leftist media present to you) then perhaps you could at least listen to the arguments the NRA is making, before dismissing them as ignorant rednecks.
Here's an article by the genius economist Thomas Sowell who goes over the cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms in US society:
Actually, the League of Nations was a failure, because no one took it seriously.
I agree. In 1922 the League was relatively fresh. It was later everyone ignored it (same with the UN after the Communist+Islamic 'Red/Green' alliance set up a voting bloc that allowed crazy resolutions after about 1970 - which one of the videos I posted in an earlier comment shows how that came about). The main thing to take away is, *under international law there is a legal basis for Israel* (many deny that there is this basis). We can quibble about where the borders ought to be, but the position of many in the UN's OIC voting bloc is that there should be no Israel whatsoever - which it not in line with accepted international law.
Yes, those boundaries are even worse bullshit than the "original" boundaries of "Israel".
Ok, so would it be safe to assume that you don't think Israel should exist at all? that would explain the rest of your post - but it would be nice if you 'came out' in front of other Slashdotters so they could judge how reasonable you are (as in, you agree with the genocidal aims of the Palestinian Arabs, yes?).
Given that Jews were 10% of the population of the area and were driven out by force, and you want to suggest that the wars should be able to push the boundaries around, the answer to the question is pretty much no. Either using force to establish territory is valid, in which case the Jews were already kicked out of the region by completely valid means, or it isn't, in which case the nation of Israel was created under completely specious conditions.
Well, either you believe in force as the basis of authority or you don't. If you do believe in force as the basis of national authority then Israel deserves to keep the land it has - and might as well annex Judea and Samaria under the same 'rule of force' rules you propose. If you believe that force/conquest does not legitimize national sovereignity then you then have to turn to the legal basis of these things, in which case Israel is legal and the status of Judea/Samaria/West Bank remains officially "disputed" territory to be resolved by negotiation. Either way, Israel has the right to be in Israel proper and the only thing left is the sovereignty of the "disputed" territory of the West Bank (do the Jordanians own it, or does Israel? that's the question to be resolved).
If it's valid to create an Israeli state in the region by act of violence, which is what happened, then it's valid to create a Palestinian state in the region by act of violence, right over the top of Israel.
False and shows you don't know even the basics of the 20th Century history of the region. It is no wonder your statements seem profoundly ignorant from the position of anyone who does know the history. Israel was set up by League of Nations mandate followed by UN recognition. The violence was the Arab Legion (including armies from five nations) attacking the day after Israel was recognized by the UN (and the Arab League had the stated goal of genocide). There was Arab vs Jew violence under the British, but this was inter-community tension not related directly for the political formation of Israel (there were terrorist attacks against the British, but you are talking about the Arab vs Jewish conflict, yes?). If you look at the history it is clear that the Israelis always fight wars that are 'strategically defensive' in nature because they are attacked by the strategically offensive Arabs. The Israelis do use 'tactical offense' as part of their strategically defensive posture. I hope you have enough military knowledge to know the difference. *It is the Israelis under attack by the Arab Ummah/jihadis/Iranian proxies and rocket fire etc* and it is the Israelis who are on the *strategic defensive*. If you hate aggression then you ought to look at the *strategic aggressor*, which is the Islamists.
Well, for a start, I'm from New Zealand, not US. Therefore your assumption I'm from the US is false.
Secondly, Britain has 87 working Sharia courts. The fact your country has these courts and doesn't understand the significance of them shows that the political leadership of the UK is hardly neutral (it clearly has a very left-leaning culture that is tolerant of the barbarism of Sharia; I guess you can't see this since you are already indoctrinated by it).
Thirdly, you make the fallacy that because something is popular then it must be morally just. This is simply not the case. If you had watched the video I referred to in my previous post you would understand how the UN became fundamentally broken and is being used by the OIC to demonize Israel unfairly (in line with the Qur'anic doctrines the OIC follow that require destruction of all Jews in order to bring the End of the World in Islamic eschatology - see hadith 6981 in Sahih Muslim).
Fourthly, the UN is corrupt not because it makes decisions I personally don't agree with, but because the basis for decision making is simply 'mob rule' - and the largest voting bloc just happens to be the OIC, which is why places like Iran and Sudan (still practicing slavery) get to accuse Israel of alleged 'human rights violations' for defending its citizens against the stated genocidal aims of its enemies (please go and read the Hamas Charter, it is horrific). The fact you still think the UN is working towards the principles it was founded on shows just how little you actually understand about the UN as it operates today. It is clear you didn't even look at the video I posted - instead wanted to spout your ignorant view of the UN without even checking the references I have presented. C'mon Patch86, I'm sure you can do better than that.
This is a fallacious statement. There are "genocidal" Jews in Israel, and peace-loving Arabs in Palestine. Sadly on both sides the genocidal factions get the most press and power. The settler and hardline Zionists are just as bad, really, as the extremists among the Arabs.
More moral equivalence, and I'm afraid this is false. Yes, I fully agree that the hardline religious right in Israel is dangerous. It turns out so does the Israel Government, who cracks down on them (when they can, given they are a democracy so need to amass sufficient votes to get the laws passed to do this).
The point that it appears you have missed (as do many others) is not what individual people choose to do (there are crazies in all societies) but what are the relative positions of the respective Governments. The Israeli Government is not genocidal - think about it, if they wanted to eliminate and ethically cleans the non-Israeli Arabs (don't forget over 1 million Israelis are Arab) they could have easily done so (given the many wars and their overwhelming military power). The Israel Government takes great care not to harm Palestinian citizens (look at "Operation Pillar of Cloud", it is clear the Israelis care more about Palestinian citizens than Hamas does. Consider that the Israelis calling off strikes if Palestinian citizens are near; calling Palestinian citizens to warn them to leave buildings etc; treating Palestinian citizens in Israeli hospitals; even if this means rockets may continue to be launched at Israeli citizens!. Meanwhile Hamas targets Israeli citizens with indiscriminate rocket fire (12000 so far) which is a clear war crime, and Hamas builds bunkers to protect its men and rockets but refuses to let Palestinian citizens to shelter there (using armed force to keep them out) and instead prefers the Palestinian citizens be "involuntarily matyred" as human shields - as they can then use this for propaganda purposes (when they aren't busy displaying babies killed by their own misfired rockets [falsely blaming it on Israelis], or copying photos of dead Syrians and claiming the Israelis killed Palestinians etc. please Google "Pallywood" to see the lies the Palestinians use).
That would be picking sides...
I understand you are afraid that by picking sides you would enable equally bad people to carry out bad actions. However, as I've tried to point out (and I recommend you watch the links in my first post, please:) ) there is one side that has a stated goal (in Arabic) of committing genocide and ethnic cleansing, and the other side does not want to be killed by genocide and "swept into the sea" as the Arabs state repeatedly. Here is a good quote that sums the situation up, "If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be peace tomorrow; if the Israelis laid down their arms there would be no more Israel". See how the situation is not equivalent? In this case it not only moral to pick the Israeli side, it is immoral not too - ignoring repeated attempts and a stated Palestinian policy of genocide should not be ignored. Therefore, one is forced to pick sides.
No, the aggressors on both sides should be stuck down, both Arab and Jew, allowing the normal folk who just want to raise their families live peaceably. The Arabs shouldn't get a pass, any more than the more hateful bits of the Zionist movement. Occupy Isreal/Palestine, then throw anyone who breaks the peace, Jew or Arab, on a desert island, naked, and let them sort it out like men, without letting innocents suffer.
Please read the history then. You will find that the Arabs started all the wars. In 1967 the Arabs were preparing another war (already had shelling in the Sinai and a naval blockade of Israel) when the Israelis per-emptively struck (if they hadn't then they'd been gone, and the Arabs would have been able to carry out their *stated goal* of genocide).
Actually the legal basis for Israel goes back to the League of Nations in 1922 and the British Mandate. One of the first videos I posted in my original post explains the legal case, FYI. I suggest you check it out. Then we have the UN Resolution After that we have many wars (all the surrounding nations thought they could eliminate Israel through genocide). It is the wars that have shaped the current boundaries. Ignoring what boundary should be where (which, should be settled by negotiation without precondition, as was originally planned and the Israelis continue to say) it all comes down to a simple question: does Israel have a right to exist? given the continuous history of Jews in the area for 3000 years, the fact that Jews arrived in the late 19th Century and legally purchased land and the fact that the international community have repeatedly acknowledged the case for Israel where it is, then the answer to the question is pretty much *yes*. After that it is all details. The answer the Arabs give is *no*, despite the fact the Arabs did not own the territory - the former clearly recognized owners were the Ottoman Empire (for several hundred years) followed by the British under a League of Nations mandate (who then prepared the basis for the state of Israel).
2) That the starting point for negotiations for a two state solution be based on the pre-1967 borders.
The pre-1967 borders are pretty much the same as the indefensible 1948 borders. Why should negotiations start with this precondition? there is no legal nor moral basis for starting here. Why not start with the borders as they are after the last war in 1973? surely that is far more logical. It is this that the Israelis object to most strongly. In fact, but setting this precondition it is clear to prejudice the negotiations. Even Obama has finally realised that such a demand is nonsense (which is why he stopped saying it when he finally got around to visiting Israel).
1) That Israel ceases the construction of illegal settlements on its land.
Under International Law the land is in dispute - although around Jerusalem the Israelis make the case that re-united Jerusalem is their capital and they can build anywhere they want within its districts. No other nation is subject to interference by external meddling with regard to construction in their capital. Now, I personally don't agree with this, but that's how the Israeli's see it. With regard to building in Judea+Samaria/West Bank. The territory is in dispute. Before the Jews were ethnically cleansed from the area in 1948 there was territory held there. Now there have been cases of illegal seizures of land in the West Bank - there is legal recourse for this is many cases (although some injustices do remain, we can agree on that). It is clear the Israelis are taking advantage of the disputed status of the West Bank under international law to change the facts on the ground. Please also note that the Israelis did exactly as the Word asked of them and had a settlement freeze. Do you know what happened? nothing! that's right, Abbas did nothing because he wasn't interested in long term peace. As I say, go and see the statements made by the Palestinians in *Arabic*, they have *zero* interest in permanent peace and the Israelis now know it - too bad you don't do the homework so you too would understand the Palestinians position *in Arabic* when they talk to their own people. It is this ignorance that makes your statements false.
The latter point was accepted by the United Nations in Resolution 58/292 (Israel and the United States were the only two major nations to vote against it, joined by four small island nations).
You do know that the United Nations has become so corrupt that no one takes its resolutions seriously, yes? It is so bad that "paragons of human rights" countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan (still practicing slavery!), Syria and North Korea are dominating the Human Rights Council. Only someone who is completely ignorant of the fact that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) now has a 57 member voting bloc that can raise and force through any resolution it wants. The UN is a joke and only a fool things any of their resolutions past 1970 are worth much of a damn. Here's a little history on why the UN became so corrupt and is now working against Enlightenment values: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8
I guess the huge UN bias against Israel matches your political agenda perfectly, which is why you never even stop to consider whether you are being objective or not.
It is something US citizens should keep in mind as Obama progressively dismantles your military and plans to reduce your nuclear deterrent below a credible level. Against unreasonable opponents (eg. Islamic jihad) the "Law of the Jungle" cannot be denied (biggest and most determined wins).
However, against a "reasonable" opponent many things can be solved by negotiation and quid-pro-quo (mutally agreed swaps). The trick is not to confuse reasonable and unreasonable opponents (the Left stupidly treat all opponents as reasonable; the rednecks treat all opponents as unreasonable).
Sorry, I must have been unclear. I wasn't talking about individual property titles, I was talking about national sovereignty. Could you please show where the Arab Palestinians have some kind of recognized international claim. Pretty please. You won't find it. I've already given a capsule history of sovereignty in the region and the Arab Palestinians have never ever had it (because they never existed - as my references point out, the 'Palestinian' Arab nationality was a fiction invented in 1967 by the PLO so they could destroy Israel - as the PLO admit in their own words [which I reference]).
Yes, I agree there have been some dubious moves by the Israeli Government (many of which I don't personally agree with - which may make you happy, and hopefully will stop your cursing). However, what is being discussed is the legalities of *national sovereignty* under international law. If you would like to find a historical document or internationally recognised legally binding document that abrogates Israelis claim for national sovereignty (ignoring of course, the borders that need to finalized) then I would be very very interested to see it. Thanks.
Palestinian people legally owned most of the land in Israel.
Could you please point to the legal document that shows this? pretty please? you simply won't find it, it doesn't exist. The last unchallenged international resolution was the 1922 League of Nations decision that the *region* of Palestine should be split into a portion for Jews and a portion for Arabs. Originally the Arab portion was to be called Transjordan (later Jordan). The British administering the region created this. Then they reneged on their deal and decided to give *additional* land to the Arabs (at the expense of the territory originally planned for the Jews). The final borders were to be decided by negotiation. Then there were uprising and World War II which slowed things down. After World War II the UN decided that Israel could be formed (and recognized it) and an Arab state could be formed (but the Arabs refused, they wanted everything and thought they could commit genocide to achieve this).
I'm afraid it appears it is you spouting bullshit because you are ignorant of even the basic historical facts of the region. Please do your homework next time - then you might have a chance of forming a historically correct conclusion. Pretty please.
Yeah, that's a great video. The excellent Bill Whittle understood this and pointed out that the only unique claims are the first and the last. Since the Cana'anites were destroyed long ago. The next up would be the Philistines (*no* relation to the *Arab* Palestinians), but they were destroyed in 604 BC by Nebuchadnezzar. So that leaves the earliest remaining claimant as Jews and their descendants (eg. Israel). The last claimant is also Israel (for land West of the Jordan River).
I don't mean that Israel should automatically get all the land West of the Jordan. What I mean is that the Israelis have as good a claim as anyone else, and arguably better. There are those who falsely say that Israel was only formed by Europeans after World War II. This is patently false - there have been Jews living in the area continuously for 3000 years. The Zionists did not arrive in 1948 and kick out the native Arab inhabitants as some fantasize - this is simply not true. The Jews have always been in the area and merely declared themselves a state in the same way that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc all came into being at various times after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
You mean the international law that has always held that ALL the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem have always been illegal and should be returned to the Palestinians? That international law?
Could you please point to the resolution that gives Judea+Samaria/West Bank to the Jordanians? they were the owners before Israel captured if off them. The 'owners' before were British (under their Mandate). The owners before that were the Ottomans. What you seem to fail to appreciate is that the Palestinians in the West Bank *are the same* as the Jordanians. Jordan and Israel should be negotiating (backed up by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate).
Did the fact that sub-Saharan African countries were majority-black mean Apartheid was okay? Two seconds of scrutiny...
I never said Apartheid was ok. Stop putting up strawmen. It discredits the rest of your argument, so I'll ignore it.
When did Zionists negotiate with Palestinians on the formation of Israel?
It also works in reverse, why don't the Palestinians negotiate for a settlement (and the answer I already gave: the Qur'an and hadiths command they commit genocide, but I guess you have a poor or no understanding of Islamic scripture, which is why you point the finger of blame in the wrong direction). In 1948 the UN offered two states, Israel accepted and the Arabs refused (believing their genocidal plan would be successful). The Israelis were prepared to negotiate, and have been prepared ever since to negotiate provided there are *no preconditions* (otherwise, what is the point of negotiating, yeah?). So, your argument is false. Israel has always been prepared to negotiate. It is the Palestinian side that negotiate in bad faith for 'hudna' (temporary truce until they can achieve their *declared* genocidal aims). The Israelis are prepare to negotiate final borders. However, as long as the Palestinians are intransigent the Israelis intend to make them feel pain and *force* them back to the negotiating table. I personally don't agree with this, but then the majority of Israelis have come to the conclusion that they don't have a credible peace partner (this became especially obvious when the Israelis unilaterally returned Gaza and it did not bring peace but 12000 rockets instead - it is through hard experience that the Israelis think the statements you are making are quite frankly dilettante bullshit that doesn't recognize the reality of the Palestinian political position).
And rightly so. The British Mandate of Palestine was going to give 56% of the land to 31% of the population, almost all of whom were immigrants. It's like if the minority Cuban immigrant population of Florida up and laid claim to most of the state - think the rest of the population might reject such a proposal?
If you understood Arabic naming you would understand that after 400 years of population stagnation both the Arabs and Zionists experienced population growth and massive immigration at the end of the 19th Century. Most 'Palestinians' have names like 'Al Misri' (The Egyptian) which indicates where they immigrated from - to work on many of the new enterprises the Zionists set up. Even Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian who had far less claim on the land than most of Israelis (but if you actually read the references I provided you would understand that Yasser Arafat's own words show that your statements are anti-historical and false - which is why I provided them to you; so you could learn the truth about the situation rather than the false memes perpetuated by mainstream left-leaning media).
I agree with your statements. Sorry if I was unclear. The grandparent was oblique so I was less oblique. Israel actions are much much more moral than those of the Islamist political class (who dominate the Palestinian people).
Your comment is correct for the situation you pose it for. Unfortunately where your argument falls flat is in applying "moral equivalence" to the two sides and thereby making both parties equally guilty. This is a fallacy. Consider this, which war did Israel start that wasn't due to rockets being fired at it or an attack massing on its borders where it chose to strike before all five enemy armies were fully ready to attack it? that's right, there are *no* wars that Israel started without being fired on first or blockaded and about to be fired on (1967).
However, the Arabs side chooses to start all the wars. Why is this? because Israel's position is that it will live peaceably with the Arabs if they are prepared to sign a permanent peace treaty on fair terms. The Arab political position is simple: genocide for the Jews as laid out in the Qur'an and hadiths. It is the aggressive commandments of Islam that drive this war. The war will never end until either Islam is destroyed or the Jews are annihilated (and then Islam can move on to its next target, the Christian nations of the West. As graffiti all over Arab Palestine says, "First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday". Meaning, first destroy the Jews [Shabbat on Saturday] then the Christians [Sabbath on Sunday]).
So, while I agree with your posting for the scenario you describe, this scenario is not applicable to the situation in Palestine/Israel. Drawing "moral equivalence" between the two sides ends up equating the genocidal goals of Islam with the right of a UN member State to defend itself against attack. Clearly such an equivalence is a falsehood.
Actually, it is a fight between a flawed but viable secular democracy and an genocidal theocracy/dictatorship. I know I'd rather see Israel survive because both the Arabs (Israel has over a million Arab and Muslim citizens already), Jews and secularists win. If the other side wins then the State of Israel is destroyed, following a genocide on all non-Muslims, and probably followed by something similar to Syria or Pakistan where various Islamic sects make perpetual war on one another. Which do you think would be the best outcome?
Where you have the situation wrong is that you assume that Israel objects to a Palestinian State merely on the basis of a Palestinian State existing. This is completely false, and misrepresents the position of the Israeli Government - and leads normal, moral people to draw incorrect conclusions. Please allow me to correct your understanding. The Israelis have always offered an Arab Palestinian State (and in fact, the Arabs were offered international recognition of one in 1948 by the United Nations but they refused, and continued to refuse as long as Israel exists).
The Israelis will fully endorse an Arab Palestinian State (in addition to the secular/Jewish Palestinian State called 'Israel') upon the following conditions:
1) Mutual recognition of Israel by the Arab Palestinians (in Arabic; they practice 'taqiyya' by saying one thing in English for suckers to believe while saying something completely different in Arabic)
2) The security needs of Israel to be met - no more Palestinian-Authority sanctioned jihadis to be sent to Israel
3) Everything else to be settled by *negotiation*.
The problem the Israelis have with the moves for Palestinian Statehood through the United Nations is *not* the creation of a Palestinian State. It is bypassing negotiations with the Israelis and bypassing mutual agreement and a *permanent* peace treaty (instead of the temporary 'hudna' that exists now while jihadis regather strength). The Palestinian move in the United Nations (now dominated by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation voting bloc) was a *very* sly move to bypass negotiations with the Israelis (unfortunately most people aren't aware of this aspect). So you see, the problem is that much of the left-leaning media (Associated Press, BBC, MSNBC etc) omit the reason for the Israeli protests. The Israelis have always offered to recognize an Arab Palestinian State, provided the Palestinian State recognize Israel *in Arabic*. Once you know this, you see the Israeli position as being entirely reasonable - they want to *negotiate* for permanent peace. I think most reasonable people would agree with the Israelis on this, and agree that the Palestinians sneaking through the UN to avoid recognizing Israel with a permanent peace treaty is not very good.
Here's some evidence of the real Palestinian position (which the media is not telling you about, it is feeding you propaganda instead without ever checking the real facts):
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?doc_id=8704&fi=157
ps. for those of you who are also fooled by the falsehood that Israel is 'the last European colonial state' you may want to ponder the fact that Jews have been living continuously in the region of Palestine for over 3000 years (the Arabs came later, and invaded around 1400 years ago). While no-one holds a unique claim to the land, it is a falsehood to say that Israel was only formed by European Jewish refugees after World War II. The Jews have been there a lot longer than that (even if they had been ethnically cleansed and were in small numbers until the end of the 19th Century).
Please also note that the Arabs and Muslims already have 56 large and mostly uncrowded countries. They don't want to destroy Israel because of the *land*, they want to do it because the Qur'an and hadiths tell them to. The fiction of being 'Palestinian' rather than 'Arab' or 'Jordanian' was only invented after the 1967 Israeli vi
Pilots are able to do many tasks while talking on the radio to many other aircraft and ground stations. I'm talking about even private pilots in 'bug smasher' aircraft - just just commercial pilots and military aviators.
As long as you are hands free and looking at the road I personally think that the burden of talking on a 'hands free' phone setup is no worse than talking to a passenger or listening to the radio. If ordinary folks can manage to fly aircraft and listen and talk (and mostly not crash) then prohibiting people talking (hands free) while driving seems like overcaution and resistance to change.
I'm sure there at the low end of the skill spectrum (those easily task saturated, eg. my mother:) ) are those that can't talk and drive, but they should be banned from having radio and passengers too - yet doing so seems ridiculous, yes? the restrictions on hands-free calls also seem ridiculous when seen in the same light, yes?
Are you a Muslim perhaps? that would explain quite a lot.
Well you don't have to worry, because even Iran wasn't stupid enough to go full Sharia
Please tell me what this "full Sharia" means. There is only Sharia, but there are Milestones an abrogation on the way to progressively implementing it (as the Egyptians are finding out - with the python of Sharia slowly closing in).
Let's look at the facts of Iran. They are Sharia compliant in that they hang homosexuals from cranes. They are Sharia compliant in that they are a theocracy. They are Sharia compliant in that pre-pubescent girls can be married (against their will, of course, and they are too young to consent anyway). This is following the lead of the pedophile Mohammed who (at 54) 'married' Aisha at 6 and started having sex with her at 9. This is the immoral behaviour you are defending. A report came out yesterday estimating that there are around 850000 such marriages in Iran, following the lead of the Alltatollah Khomeni who married a 10 year old when he was 28. Then last year Iran invented a machine for automating the cutting off of fingers and hands according to Sharia. Then we have women who are molested by men are arrested (the man gets of free), and before the women are stoned to death (remember, this is the 21st Century and they do this) the women are raped by their guards to ensure they are are not virgins and won't enter heaven (and are therefore tortured for eternity in Hell - all for being raped by another man). The punishment of stoning is due to Sharia. Then we have the Sharia compilant crushing of Free Speech, and any dissent (eg. 2009) including thousands of non-violent protestors. Then we have the Sharia compliant hatred of Jews and intention to commit genocide against them. I had a friend travel through Iran and they thought he was German, many Iranians (although, very gladly, not all) said to him, "You German? Hilter good, kill many Jews". Of course, the Iranian proxy Hezbollah performs the Nazi salute at its rallies (as I said, it was the Mufti of Jerusalem who gave Hitler the idea for the Final Solution when he said Jews could be killed like the Armenians in the 1915 Turkish jihad).
So for someone who claims to hate Nazis you sure are making a lot of excuses for the Muslim groups that are the inheritors of the Nazi mission.
You appear to be clutching at straws to pretend you are not driving in the wedge.
The person clutching at straws is you: you have no facts, only opinions. You have no citations, no references, and no data. Everything you put up I have shot down with citations, references, data and anecdotal evidence. You have failed and are clutching at straws yourself. Too bad you are not intelligent enough to detect your defeat - which is why it is so funny to watch you make a fool of yourself without realising it.
Just accept what the criminals are doing with your eyes open and move on instead of ranting like the idiot that I'm sure you aren't with any other subject.
I wish you would do the same. Too bad you know nothing and aren't prepared to listen to those that know a lot more than you.
Yes I read your comment. You are concerned that I propose to strip rights from Muslims. Please don't be concerned - that is not what I or other propose at all. So please feel free to relax a little.
What we propose is that when Sharia law comes up against established local law in non-Muslim countries (eg. the Constitution in the US) then it is Sharia that gives way. You may think this is obvious but in at least 23 cases in the US the Constitution has been sideline for Sharia. Hence places like Florida and Oklahoma have passed state laws prohibiting foreign laws in US courts. My position is that this should be applied to the whole of the Federal US. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
Fair enough, but there is no accepted taxonomy for planets. In the case of the gravitational microlensing planetary events it is an accident of project, year and event within the year. In short, arbitrary and meaningless. Then we can take plenty of the traditional star names out there, eg. "Algol" from Arabic Al Gol "The ghoul" or "winking demon" from its variable nature. That is no less ridiculous than Koozebane, and less funny.
Damn he won the contest. As a former member of a team that discovered planets using gravitational microlensing I always wanted to get the chance to name a planet "Koozebane", which is the planet many muppet aliens (supposedly) come from. Instead they got named boring things like "MACHO-98-BLG-35". Lucky guy to name the planet.
A couple of criminals let off a bomb to drive a wedge between two societies and you've not only taken up the bait but are spreading your own venom to continue the job.
This is false. That's the problem with you lefties, you never ever listen to what the bombers themselves say. You always project your own views on to what they say. The bomber's goal was not to drive a wedge between societies. That already exists according to Islamic doctrine (which it appears you know zip about). Their goal, as the survivor himself said, was "jihad". It is conquest and subjugation. But, as I have tried to point out, you refuse to look at the facts. Instead you are projecting your own views rather than *listening to what the jihadis say*.
It's just not on to treat millions as non-citizens and potential criminals.
False again. Muslims can do whatever they won't in their own personal lives, and they can believe all the stupid superstition they like. What they don't have the right to do is to impose their laws but altering ours. Yet that is exactly what they are doing, slowly but surely, using things like UN HRC Resolution 16/18 to limit Free Speech. I'm not suggesting taking away any Muslim rights. All I'm saying is that they should have *equal* rights with everyone else - no less, but also no *more* rights (privileges). That means when they do their honor killings and murder defenseless young girls for wearing make-up they get subjected to the same laws we do, not allowed to go free due to 'cultural' excuses. When mobs of them intimidate normal citizens and hold placards calling for sedition and overthrow of democracy then they should be prosecuted like everyone else.
You've been missing the mark by trying to connect me with things I've never even heard about, this has all been about you and your problem where you have been tricked into continuing the criminals work for them.
I can't help it if you don't know anything. Doesn't that worry you that you don't know any of the facts, figures or references I'm able to cite? Surely you should be reading what I'm providing instead of remaining woefully ignorant of what is going on. I promise you that nothing I've posted is anything other than facts and unbiased analysis of the Qur'an etc. You see, the fact you don't actually know anything on the subject and you are just going on what apologists have said mean that you are being manipulated so easily (something the apologists for evil rely on). If you go back to my original post and actually watch the videos and read the citations I've been posting you will finally understand that the arguments counter-jihadis are making are not evil or Nazi in nature. We simply want to preserve the human rights of all people, which are under dire threat by Islam (which is a political ideology that is close to National Socialism and Soviet Communism - both of which suppress the human rights of people in their system and also external to their system).
... you have been tricked into continuing the criminals work for them
Actually, it is *you* that is working for them. The fact you know so little about the subject means you have been manipulated into apologizing for the evil of Islam (which you don't understand at all) and against human rights - yet in your ignorance you somehow think you are promoting human rights. This is simply delusional - but is exactly what the manipulators on the political Left and Islamist allies (with whom they have a common cause) want you to do. Too bad you can't see through it. Hopefully when you actually learn more stuff you will come to see the Truth.
That's why I saw your listing of you bio as just sad and not your intended result of making me respect you.
You are not very self aware of your own actions, are you? I said you were "anti-scientific" because you refuse to look at new facts (clearly, I've referen
Hey dhimmi, do you like grabbing your ankles for terrorists? These are the guys you back (read the Qur'anic verse, used to justify this): http://www.timesofisrael.com/alleged-us-spy-crucified-in-yemen/
Don't go too wild on your applause of the Islamists for a mere crucifiction - there is so much more of this every day, so you get plenty of opportunities to demonstrate your "tolerance" by making excuses for these guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your reply. When was there a large neonazi attack? When was there an actual Klan attack? Sure, these were indeed big problems in the past, but *today* the incidence is negligible as far as I can see. So perhaps you'll point me to the organized wave of Klan attacks (since the Klan was formed by Democratic party members, which most Democrats don't know, you would expect the Democratic party holding the Senate and White House would lead to an uptake in attacks if the threats you mention were anything other than strawmen, yeah?)
In other words, you really don't want to have a debate over whether the Koran is more anti-freedom then your Holy Book.
My Holy Book is "Principia Mathematica" and subsequent works. So let's not go up the soft ad-hominem route shall we?
I think in your defense of Islam you seem to think that the Abrahamic religions are all equally bad. As an atheist I think they are all bullshit from an enlightened scientific perspective. However there are two massive flaws in your attempt at making them morally equivalent:
I hope you can now see the fundamental difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One has a few barbaric commandments that are no longer listened to and claims no mandate over non-believers. Whereas Islam is a *political ideology* that claims political authority over Muslims and non-Muslims alike, has a great deal of violent and hateful beliefs as part of its mainstream *core* doctrine, and it actively carried out today (and historically has been directly responsible for at least 270 million deaths through personal and mass jihad).
Another interesting thing to note is that while Islam claims to be an Abrahamic faith, the reality is actually different. The attributes given to Allah (which is a title, not a personal name) in the Qur'an are *different* to the attributes given to YHWH/Jehovah by the Torah/Bible. For example, YHWH can never lie, yet the Qur'an states that Allah is the "Greatest of Deceivers". It is simply not possible for (the fictional) YHWH to be the same as the (equally fictional) Allah - despite what Islam claims. For a full analysis please see the following link:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
While drawing "moral equivalence" is a common tactic of apologists of Islam, the facts show that it is a fallacy - which I hope you can now see with the references and description I've given.
The 'terrorist' label is not implied racially nor ideologically as you imply. Terrorism is used when a person intends to cause 'terror' to the general populace.
So, devout Muslims who follow Sura 9:29 and want to subjugate and terrorize all non-Muslims in the world are correctly labelled terrorists - because their explicit aim is to terrorize. ... and yes, the ideology of Islam really does hate you for your freedoms (which are 'haram' and against *mainstream* Islam).
Meanwhile, some loon who shoots cops is not a terrorist because their aim is to get at cops (or whatever their grudge may be) and not to 'terrorize' the general population.
Can you see the difference now? it is not racism or anti-Islamism that makes one action terrorism and another not. It is the aims and the methods that make it terrorism. It is simply politically correct indoctrination that tries to conflate racism with the fight against terrorism. Please don't do that, it is immoral to support terrorists whose aim is to hurt and intimidate *civilians*.
You cannot call this 'sedition' and still claim to follow the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is specifically designed for exactly the purpose the NRA are stating - this is patriotism, not sedition. As far as the US Constitution is concerned 'sedition' is essentially that activity the current US Administration is undertaking whereby it is bypassing the legislature to enact 'Executive Orders' that achieve anti-Constitutional goals. Of course many in the US don't see or notice this because they mainstream media appears to supporting the bypassing of the Constitution when it doesn't align with their goals (which are socialist in nature - they talk about 'individual freedom' but are actually all for the Government dictating what is 'politically correct' for you to do; this is the anti-thesis of liberty for the smallest minority of all, the *individual*).
I used to be a believer in gun control except the NRA pointed out how anti-Constitutional this is (and I strongly support the US Constitution, despite not being a US citizen). Then we have more practical matters, such as the fact that of the gun deaths each year 2/3 are self-inflicted suicides (if guns were not available then these people would still find a way, perhaps even more messy). Of the remaining ten thousand or so tragic deaths it is pretty safe to say there are *none* committed by NRA members. In fact, most of the deaths are caused by handguns (not by AR-15 and the like) and by criminals who have no license for the weapon (so adding more laws simply won't change that figure). What is really amazing and not reported in the media, is that good people with firearms prevent over *one hundred thousand* instances of crime because they present a firearm in their own defense (with around 2% of these weapons actually needing to be discharged). You must ask yourself, why are the media not reporting the true statistics? why is the Obama Administration not reporting these true statistics, that in a cost-benefit analysis the Second Amendment saves more lives than are taken by criminals with unlicensed weapons? why isn't it emphasized that murderous rampages are only stopped when someone, usually citizens, shoots the madman dead? why should police have a monopoly in defending citizens who are keen to defend themselves (and would rather the police arrive to interview the surviving gun owner than merely investigate the bodies left by armed criminals)? why are the statistics not used for sensible and well-informed debate?
The answer comes back to this, the current Administration is exploiting tragedies to further its agenda in disarming the populace. Once the populace is disarmed they cannot resist the will of the Government. Instead of the citizens being the masters and the Government implementing the will of the people (or their representatives) the situation will be reversed (the citizens serve the Government). The NRA are probably much more aware of history than you are. When Hitler, Stalin etc got into power one of the first things they do was disarm the population. Socialists always do that, because it means the populace has no effective means of resisting the socialist Government. The NRA are correct in this debate and have history and the US Constitution on their side. Can you bring yourself to admit that perhaps some rednecks know more history than you do and perhaps understand the implications of the Obama Administration's "think of the children" agenda to dismember the Constitution? Amazing isn't it? So, if you care about preserving the current liberties in the US (you know, what Conservatives like to do, despite the caricatures the leftist media present to you) then perhaps you could at least listen to the arguments the NRA is making, before dismissing them as ignorant rednecks.
Here's an article by the genius economist Thomas Sowell who goes over the cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms in US society:
Actually, the League of Nations was a failure, because no one took it seriously.
I agree. In 1922 the League was relatively fresh. It was later everyone ignored it (same with the UN after the Communist+Islamic 'Red/Green' alliance set up a voting bloc that allowed crazy resolutions after about 1970 - which one of the videos I posted in an earlier comment shows how that came about). The main thing to take away is, *under international law there is a legal basis for Israel* (many deny that there is this basis). We can quibble about where the borders ought to be, but the position of many in the UN's OIC voting bloc is that there should be no Israel whatsoever - which it not in line with accepted international law.
Yes, those boundaries are even worse bullshit than the "original" boundaries of "Israel".
Ok, so would it be safe to assume that you don't think Israel should exist at all? that would explain the rest of your post - but it would be nice if you 'came out' in front of other Slashdotters so they could judge how reasonable you are (as in, you agree with the genocidal aims of the Palestinian Arabs, yes?).
Given that Jews were 10% of the population of the area and were driven out by force, and you want to suggest that the wars should be able to push the boundaries around, the answer to the question is pretty much no. Either using force to establish territory is valid, in which case the Jews were already kicked out of the region by completely valid means, or it isn't, in which case the nation of Israel was created under completely specious conditions.
Well, either you believe in force as the basis of authority or you don't. If you do believe in force as the basis of national authority then Israel deserves to keep the land it has - and might as well annex Judea and Samaria under the same 'rule of force' rules you propose. If you believe that force/conquest does not legitimize national sovereignity then you then have to turn to the legal basis of these things, in which case Israel is legal and the status of Judea/Samaria/West Bank remains officially "disputed" territory to be resolved by negotiation. Either way, Israel has the right to be in Israel proper and the only thing left is the sovereignty of the "disputed" territory of the West Bank (do the Jordanians own it, or does Israel? that's the question to be resolved).
If it's valid to create an Israeli state in the region by act of violence, which is what happened, then it's valid to create a Palestinian state in the region by act of violence, right over the top of Israel.
False and shows you don't know even the basics of the 20th Century history of the region. It is no wonder your statements seem profoundly ignorant from the position of anyone who does know the history. Israel was set up by League of Nations mandate followed by UN recognition. The violence was the Arab Legion (including armies from five nations) attacking the day after Israel was recognized by the UN (and the Arab League had the stated goal of genocide). There was Arab vs Jew violence under the British, but this was inter-community tension not related directly for the political formation of Israel (there were terrorist attacks against the British, but you are talking about the Arab vs Jewish conflict, yes?). If you look at the history it is clear that the Israelis always fight wars that are 'strategically defensive' in nature because they are attacked by the strategically offensive Arabs. The Israelis do use 'tactical offense' as part of their strategically defensive posture. I hope you have enough military knowledge to know the difference. *It is the Israelis under attack by the Arab Ummah/jihadis/Iranian proxies and rocket fire etc* and it is the Israelis who are on the *strategic defensive*. If you hate aggression then you ought to look at the *strategic aggressor*, which is the Islamists.
They can say anyth
Well, for a start, I'm from New Zealand, not US. Therefore your assumption I'm from the US is false.
Secondly, Britain has 87 working Sharia courts. The fact your country has these courts and doesn't understand the significance of them shows that the political leadership of the UK is hardly neutral (it clearly has a very left-leaning culture that is tolerant of the barbarism of Sharia; I guess you can't see this since you are already indoctrinated by it).
Thirdly, you make the fallacy that because something is popular then it must be morally just. This is simply not the case. If you had watched the video I referred to in my previous post you would understand how the UN became fundamentally broken and is being used by the OIC to demonize Israel unfairly (in line with the Qur'anic doctrines the OIC follow that require destruction of all Jews in order to bring the End of the World in Islamic eschatology - see hadith 6981 in Sahih Muslim).
Fourthly, the UN is corrupt not because it makes decisions I personally don't agree with, but because the basis for decision making is simply 'mob rule' - and the largest voting bloc just happens to be the OIC, which is why places like Iran and Sudan (still practicing slavery) get to accuse Israel of alleged 'human rights violations' for defending its citizens against the stated genocidal aims of its enemies (please go and read the Hamas Charter, it is horrific). The fact you still think the UN is working towards the principles it was founded on shows just how little you actually understand about the UN as it operates today. It is clear you didn't even look at the video I posted - instead wanted to spout your ignorant view of the UN without even checking the references I have presented. C'mon Patch86, I'm sure you can do better than that.
This is a fallacious statement. There are "genocidal" Jews in Israel, and peace-loving Arabs in Palestine. Sadly on both sides the genocidal factions get the most press and power. The settler and hardline Zionists are just as bad, really, as the extremists among the Arabs.
More moral equivalence, and I'm afraid this is false. Yes, I fully agree that the hardline religious right in Israel is dangerous. It turns out so does the Israel Government, who cracks down on them (when they can, given they are a democracy so need to amass sufficient votes to get the laws passed to do this).
The point that it appears you have missed (as do many others) is not what individual people choose to do (there are crazies in all societies) but what are the relative positions of the respective Governments. The Israeli Government is not genocidal - think about it, if they wanted to eliminate and ethically cleans the non-Israeli Arabs (don't forget over 1 million Israelis are Arab) they could have easily done so (given the many wars and their overwhelming military power). The Israel Government takes great care not to harm Palestinian citizens (look at "Operation Pillar of Cloud", it is clear the Israelis care more about Palestinian citizens than Hamas does. Consider that the Israelis calling off strikes if Palestinian citizens are near; calling Palestinian citizens to warn them to leave buildings etc; treating Palestinian citizens in Israeli hospitals; even if this means rockets may continue to be launched at Israeli citizens!. Meanwhile Hamas targets Israeli citizens with indiscriminate rocket fire (12000 so far) which is a clear war crime, and Hamas builds bunkers to protect its men and rockets but refuses to let Palestinian citizens to shelter there (using armed force to keep them out) and instead prefers the Palestinian citizens be "involuntarily matyred" as human shields - as they can then use this for propaganda purposes (when they aren't busy displaying babies killed by their own misfired rockets [falsely blaming it on Israelis], or copying photos of dead Syrians and claiming the Israelis killed Palestinians etc. please Google "Pallywood" to see the lies the Palestinians use).
That would be picking sides...
I understand you are afraid that by picking sides you would enable equally bad people to carry out bad actions. However, as I've tried to point out (and I recommend you watch the links in my first post, please :) ) there is one side that has a stated goal (in Arabic) of committing genocide and ethnic cleansing, and the other side does not want to be killed by genocide and "swept into the sea" as the Arabs state repeatedly. Here is a good quote that sums the situation up, "If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be peace tomorrow; if the Israelis laid down their arms there would be no more Israel". See how the situation is not equivalent? In this case it not only moral to pick the Israeli side, it is immoral not too - ignoring repeated attempts and a stated Palestinian policy of genocide should not be ignored. Therefore, one is forced to pick sides.
No, the aggressors on both sides should be stuck down, both Arab and Jew, allowing the normal folk who just want to raise their families live peaceably. The Arabs shouldn't get a pass, any more than the more hateful bits of the Zionist movement. Occupy Isreal/Palestine, then throw anyone who breaks the peace, Jew or Arab, on a desert island, naked, and let them sort it out like men, without letting innocents suffer.
Please read the history then. You will find that the Arabs started all the wars. In 1967 the Arabs were preparing another war (already had shelling in the Sinai and a naval blockade of Israel) when the Israelis per-emptively struck (if they hadn't then they'd been gone, and the Arabs would have been able to carry out their *stated goal* of genocide).
Actually the legal basis for Israel goes back to the League of Nations in 1922 and the British Mandate. One of the first videos I posted in my original post explains the legal case, FYI. I suggest you check it out. Then we have the UN Resolution After that we have many wars (all the surrounding nations thought they could eliminate Israel through genocide). It is the wars that have shaped the current boundaries. Ignoring what boundary should be where (which, should be settled by negotiation without precondition, as was originally planned and the Israelis continue to say) it all comes down to a simple question: does Israel have a right to exist? given the continuous history of Jews in the area for 3000 years, the fact that Jews arrived in the late 19th Century and legally purchased land and the fact that the international community have repeatedly acknowledged the case for Israel where it is, then the answer to the question is pretty much *yes*. After that it is all details. The answer the Arabs give is *no*, despite the fact the Arabs did not own the territory - the former clearly recognized owners were the Ottoman Empire (for several hundred years) followed by the British under a League of Nations mandate (who then prepared the basis for the state of Israel).
2) That the starting point for negotiations for a two state solution be based on the pre-1967 borders.
The pre-1967 borders are pretty much the same as the indefensible 1948 borders. Why should negotiations start with this precondition? there is no legal nor moral basis for starting here. Why not start with the borders as they are after the last war in 1973? surely that is far more logical. It is this that the Israelis object to most strongly. In fact, but setting this precondition it is clear to prejudice the negotiations. Even Obama has finally realised that such a demand is nonsense (which is why he stopped saying it when he finally got around to visiting Israel).
1) That Israel ceases the construction of illegal settlements on its land.
Under International Law the land is in dispute - although around Jerusalem the Israelis make the case that re-united Jerusalem is their capital and they can build anywhere they want within its districts. No other nation is subject to interference by external meddling with regard to construction in their capital. Now, I personally don't agree with this, but that's how the Israeli's see it. With regard to building in Judea+Samaria/West Bank. The territory is in dispute. Before the Jews were ethnically cleansed from the area in 1948 there was territory held there. Now there have been cases of illegal seizures of land in the West Bank - there is legal recourse for this is many cases (although some injustices do remain, we can agree on that). It is clear the Israelis are taking advantage of the disputed status of the West Bank under international law to change the facts on the ground. Please also note that the Israelis did exactly as the Word asked of them and had a settlement freeze. Do you know what happened? nothing! that's right, Abbas did nothing because he wasn't interested in long term peace. As I say, go and see the statements made by the Palestinians in *Arabic*, they have *zero* interest in permanent peace and the Israelis now know it - too bad you don't do the homework so you too would understand the Palestinians position *in Arabic* when they talk to their own people. It is this ignorance that makes your statements false.
The latter point was accepted by the United Nations in Resolution 58/292 (Israel and the United States were the only two major nations to vote against it, joined by four small island nations).
You do know that the United Nations has become so corrupt that no one takes its resolutions seriously, yes? It is so bad that "paragons of human rights" countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan (still practicing slavery!), Syria and North Korea are dominating the Human Rights Council. Only someone who is completely ignorant of the fact that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) now has a 57 member voting bloc that can raise and force through any resolution it wants. The UN is a joke and only a fool things any of their resolutions past 1970 are worth much of a damn. Here's a little history on why the UN became so corrupt and is now working against Enlightenment values:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8
I guess the huge UN bias against Israel matches your political agenda perfectly, which is why you never even stop to consider whether you are being objective or not.
That's completely true.
It is something US citizens should keep in mind as Obama progressively dismantles your military and plans to reduce your nuclear deterrent below a credible level. Against unreasonable opponents (eg. Islamic jihad) the "Law of the Jungle" cannot be denied (biggest and most determined wins).
However, against a "reasonable" opponent many things can be solved by negotiation and quid-pro-quo (mutally agreed swaps). The trick is not to confuse reasonable and unreasonable opponents (the Left stupidly treat all opponents as reasonable; the rednecks treat all opponents as unreasonable).
Sorry, I must have been unclear. I wasn't talking about individual property titles, I was talking about national sovereignty. Could you please show where the Arab Palestinians have some kind of recognized international claim. Pretty please. You won't find it. I've already given a capsule history of sovereignty in the region and the Arab Palestinians have never ever had it (because they never existed - as my references point out, the 'Palestinian' Arab nationality was a fiction invented in 1967 by the PLO so they could destroy Israel - as the PLO admit in their own words [which I reference]).
Yes, I agree there have been some dubious moves by the Israeli Government (many of which I don't personally agree with - which may make you happy, and hopefully will stop your cursing). However, what is being discussed is the legalities of *national sovereignty* under international law. If you would like to find a historical document or internationally recognised legally binding document that abrogates Israelis claim for national sovereignty (ignoring of course, the borders that need to finalized) then I would be very very interested to see it. Thanks.
Palestinian people legally owned most of the land in Israel.
Could you please point to the legal document that shows this? pretty please? you simply won't find it, it doesn't exist. The last unchallenged international resolution was the 1922 League of Nations decision that the *region* of Palestine should be split into a portion for Jews and a portion for Arabs. Originally the Arab portion was to be called Transjordan (later Jordan). The British administering the region created this. Then they reneged on their deal and decided to give *additional* land to the Arabs (at the expense of the territory originally planned for the Jews). The final borders were to be decided by negotiation. Then there were uprising and World War II which slowed things down. After World War II the UN decided that Israel could be formed (and recognized it) and an Arab state could be formed (but the Arabs refused, they wanted everything and thought they could commit genocide to achieve this).
I'm afraid it appears it is you spouting bullshit because you are ignorant of even the basic historical facts of the region. Please do your homework next time - then you might have a chance of forming a historically correct conclusion. Pretty please.
Yeah, that's a great video. The excellent Bill Whittle understood this and pointed out that the only unique claims are the first and the last. Since the Cana'anites were destroyed long ago. The next up would be the Philistines (*no* relation to the *Arab* Palestinians), but they were destroyed in 604 BC by Nebuchadnezzar. So that leaves the earliest remaining claimant as Jews and their descendants (eg. Israel). The last claimant is also Israel (for land West of the Jordan River).
I don't mean that Israel should automatically get all the land West of the Jordan. What I mean is that the Israelis have as good a claim as anyone else, and arguably better. There are those who falsely say that Israel was only formed by Europeans after World War II. This is patently false - there have been Jews living in the area continuously for 3000 years. The Zionists did not arrive in 1948 and kick out the native Arab inhabitants as some fantasize - this is simply not true. The Jews have always been in the area and merely declared themselves a state in the same way that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc all came into being at various times after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
You mean the international law that has always held that ALL the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem have always been illegal and should be returned to the Palestinians? That international law?
Could you please point to the resolution that gives Judea+Samaria/West Bank to the Jordanians? they were the owners before Israel captured if off them. The 'owners' before were British (under their Mandate). The owners before that were the Ottomans. What you seem to fail to appreciate is that the Palestinians in the West Bank *are the same* as the Jordanians. Jordan and Israel should be negotiating (backed up by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate).
Did the fact that sub-Saharan African countries were majority-black mean Apartheid was okay? Two seconds of scrutiny...
I never said Apartheid was ok. Stop putting up strawmen. It discredits the rest of your argument, so I'll ignore it.
When did Zionists negotiate with Palestinians on the formation of Israel?
It also works in reverse, why don't the Palestinians negotiate for a settlement (and the answer I already gave: the Qur'an and hadiths command they commit genocide, but I guess you have a poor or no understanding of Islamic scripture, which is why you point the finger of blame in the wrong direction). In 1948 the UN offered two states, Israel accepted and the Arabs refused (believing their genocidal plan would be successful). The Israelis were prepared to negotiate, and have been prepared ever since to negotiate provided there are *no preconditions* (otherwise, what is the point of negotiating, yeah?). So, your argument is false. Israel has always been prepared to negotiate. It is the Palestinian side that negotiate in bad faith for 'hudna' (temporary truce until they can achieve their *declared* genocidal aims). The Israelis are prepare to negotiate final borders. However, as long as the Palestinians are intransigent the Israelis intend to make them feel pain and *force* them back to the negotiating table. I personally don't agree with this, but then the majority of Israelis have come to the conclusion that they don't have a credible peace partner (this became especially obvious when the Israelis unilaterally returned Gaza and it did not bring peace but 12000 rockets instead - it is through hard experience that the Israelis think the statements you are making are quite frankly dilettante bullshit that doesn't recognize the reality of the Palestinian political position).
And rightly so. The British Mandate of Palestine was going to give 56% of the land to 31% of the population, almost all of whom were immigrants. It's like if the minority Cuban immigrant population of Florida up and laid claim to most of the state - think the rest of the population might reject such a proposal?
If you understood Arabic naming you would understand that after 400 years of population stagnation both the Arabs and Zionists experienced population growth and massive immigration at the end of the 19th Century. Most 'Palestinians' have names like 'Al Misri' (The Egyptian) which indicates where they immigrated from - to work on many of the new enterprises the Zionists set up. Even Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian who had far less claim on the land than most of Israelis (but if you actually read the references I provided you would understand that Yasser Arafat's own words show that your statements are anti-historical and false - which is why I provided them to you; so you could learn the truth about the situation rather than the false memes perpetuated by mainstream left-leaning media).
I agree with your statements. Sorry if I was unclear. The grandparent was oblique so I was less oblique. Israel actions are much much more moral than those of the Islamist political class (who dominate the Palestinian people).
However, the Arabs side chooses to start all the wars. Why is this? because Israel's position is that it will live peaceably with the Arabs if they are prepared to sign a permanent peace treaty on fair terms. The Arab political position is simple: genocide for the Jews as laid out in the Qur'an and hadiths. It is the aggressive commandments of Islam that drive this war. The war will never end until either Islam is destroyed or the Jews are annihilated (and then Islam can move on to its next target, the Christian nations of the West. As graffiti all over Arab Palestine says, "First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday". Meaning, first destroy the Jews [Shabbat on Saturday] then the Christians [Sabbath on Sunday]).
So, while I agree with your posting for the scenario you describe, this scenario is not applicable to the situation in Palestine/Israel. Drawing "moral equivalence" between the two sides ends up equating the genocidal goals of Islam with the right of a UN member State to defend itself against attack. Clearly such an equivalence is a falsehood.
Actually, it is a fight between a flawed but viable secular democracy and an genocidal theocracy/dictatorship. I know I'd rather see Israel survive because both the Arabs (Israel has over a million Arab and Muslim citizens already), Jews and secularists win. If the other side wins then the State of Israel is destroyed, following a genocide on all non-Muslims, and probably followed by something similar to Syria or Pakistan where various Islamic sects make perpetual war on one another. Which do you think would be the best outcome?
Ah, I see you are repeating the propaganda approach without actually understanding the history of the region with regard to International Law. Perhaps these may enlighten you (and other Slashdotters) somewhat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub2x5UvjUs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hTOaRu7h4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
Where you have the situation wrong is that you assume that Israel objects to a Palestinian State merely on the basis of a Palestinian State existing. This is completely false, and misrepresents the position of the Israeli Government - and leads normal, moral people to draw incorrect conclusions. Please allow me to correct your understanding. The Israelis have always offered an Arab Palestinian State (and in fact, the Arabs were offered international recognition of one in 1948 by the United Nations but they refused, and continued to refuse as long as Israel exists).
The Israelis will fully endorse an Arab Palestinian State (in addition to the secular/Jewish Palestinian State called 'Israel') upon the following conditions:
The problem the Israelis have with the moves for Palestinian Statehood through the United Nations is *not* the creation of a Palestinian State. It is bypassing negotiations with the Israelis and bypassing mutual agreement and a *permanent* peace treaty (instead of the temporary 'hudna' that exists now while jihadis regather strength). The Palestinian move in the United Nations (now dominated by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation voting bloc) was a *very* sly move to bypass negotiations with the Israelis (unfortunately most people aren't aware of this aspect). So you see, the problem is that much of the left-leaning media (Associated Press, BBC, MSNBC etc) omit the reason for the Israeli protests. The Israelis have always offered to recognize an Arab Palestinian State, provided the Palestinian State recognize Israel *in Arabic*. Once you know this, you see the Israeli position as being entirely reasonable - they want to *negotiate* for permanent peace. I think most reasonable people would agree with the Israelis on this, and agree that the Palestinians sneaking through the UN to avoid recognizing Israel with a permanent peace treaty is not very good.
Here's some evidence of the real Palestinian position (which the media is not telling you about, it is feeding you propaganda instead without ever checking the real facts): http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?doc_id=8704&fi=157
ps. for those of you who are also fooled by the falsehood that Israel is 'the last European colonial state' you may want to ponder the fact that Jews have been living continuously in the region of Palestine for over 3000 years (the Arabs came later, and invaded around 1400 years ago). While no-one holds a unique claim to the land, it is a falsehood to say that Israel was only formed by European Jewish refugees after World War II. The Jews have been there a lot longer than that (even if they had been ethnically cleansed and were in small numbers until the end of the 19th Century).
Please also note that the Arabs and Muslims already have 56 large and mostly uncrowded countries. They don't want to destroy Israel because of the *land*, they want to do it because the Qur'an and hadiths tell them to. The fiction of being 'Palestinian' rather than 'Arab' or 'Jordanian' was only invented after the 1967 Israeli vi
Pilots are able to do many tasks while talking on the radio to many other aircraft and ground stations. I'm talking about even private pilots in 'bug smasher' aircraft - just just commercial pilots and military aviators.
As long as you are hands free and looking at the road I personally think that the burden of talking on a 'hands free' phone setup is no worse than talking to a passenger or listening to the radio. If ordinary folks can manage to fly aircraft and listen and talk (and mostly not crash) then prohibiting people talking (hands free) while driving seems like overcaution and resistance to change.
I'm sure there at the low end of the skill spectrum (those easily task saturated, eg. my mother :) ) are those that can't talk and drive, but they should be banned from having radio and passengers too - yet doing so seems ridiculous, yes? the restrictions on hands-free calls also seem ridiculous when seen in the same light, yes?
It's a perfectly valid question. In fact, the scientific approach is always to ask questions rather than rely on assumption.
Too bad you're just a grumpy dude with a massive chip on his shoulder and a poor grasp of current events. Farewell dhimmi.
Are you a Muslim perhaps? that would explain quite a lot.
Well you don't have to worry, because even Iran wasn't stupid enough to go full Sharia
Please tell me what this "full Sharia" means. There is only Sharia, but there are Milestones an abrogation on the way to progressively implementing it (as the Egyptians are finding out - with the python of Sharia slowly closing in).
Let's look at the facts of Iran. They are Sharia compliant in that they hang homosexuals from cranes. They are Sharia compliant in that they are a theocracy. They are Sharia compliant in that pre-pubescent girls can be married (against their will, of course, and they are too young to consent anyway). This is following the lead of the pedophile Mohammed who (at 54) 'married' Aisha at 6 and started having sex with her at 9. This is the immoral behaviour you are defending. A report came out yesterday estimating that there are around 850000 such marriages in Iran, following the lead of the Alltatollah Khomeni who married a 10 year old when he was 28. Then last year Iran invented a machine for automating the cutting off of fingers and hands according to Sharia. Then we have women who are molested by men are arrested (the man gets of free), and before the women are stoned to death (remember, this is the 21st Century and they do this) the women are raped by their guards to ensure they are are not virgins and won't enter heaven (and are therefore tortured for eternity in Hell - all for being raped by another man). The punishment of stoning is due to Sharia. Then we have the Sharia compilant crushing of Free Speech, and any dissent (eg. 2009) including thousands of non-violent protestors. Then we have the Sharia compliant hatred of Jews and intention to commit genocide against them. I had a friend travel through Iran and they thought he was German, many Iranians (although, very gladly, not all) said to him, "You German? Hilter good, kill many Jews". Of course, the Iranian proxy Hezbollah performs the Nazi salute at its rallies (as I said, it was the Mufti of Jerusalem who gave Hitler the idea for the Final Solution when he said Jews could be killed like the Armenians in the 1915 Turkish jihad).
So for someone who claims to hate Nazis you sure are making a lot of excuses for the Muslim groups that are the inheritors of the Nazi mission.
You appear to be clutching at straws to pretend you are not driving in the wedge.
The person clutching at straws is you: you have no facts, only opinions. You have no citations, no references, and no data. Everything you put up I have shot down with citations, references, data and anecdotal evidence. You have failed and are clutching at straws yourself. Too bad you are not intelligent enough to detect your defeat - which is why it is so funny to watch you make a fool of yourself without realising it.
Just accept what the criminals are doing with your eyes open and move on instead of ranting like the idiot that I'm sure you aren't with any other subject.
I wish you would do the same. Too bad you know nothing and aren't prepared to listen to those that know a lot more than you.
Yes I read your comment. You are concerned that I propose to strip rights from Muslims. Please don't be concerned - that is not what I or other propose at all. So please feel free to relax a little.
What we propose is that when Sharia law comes up against established local law in non-Muslim countries (eg. the Constitution in the US) then it is Sharia that gives way. You may think this is obvious but in at least 23 cases in the US the Constitution has been sideline for Sharia. Hence places like Florida and Oklahoma have passed state laws prohibiting foreign laws in US courts. My position is that this should be applied to the whole of the Federal US. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
Fair enough, but there is no accepted taxonomy for planets. In the case of the gravitational microlensing planetary events it is an accident of project, year and event within the year. In short, arbitrary and meaningless. Then we can take plenty of the traditional star names out there, eg. "Algol" from Arabic Al Gol "The ghoul" or "winking demon" from its variable nature. That is no less ridiculous than Koozebane, and less funny.
Damn he won the contest. As a former member of a team that discovered planets using gravitational microlensing I always wanted to get the chance to name a planet "Koozebane", which is the planet many muppet aliens (supposedly) come from. Instead they got named boring things like "MACHO-98-BLG-35". Lucky guy to name the planet.
A couple of criminals let off a bomb to drive a wedge between two societies and you've not only taken up the bait but are spreading your own venom to continue the job.
This is false. That's the problem with you lefties, you never ever listen to what the bombers themselves say. You always project your own views on to what they say. The bomber's goal was not to drive a wedge between societies. That already exists according to Islamic doctrine (which it appears you know zip about). Their goal, as the survivor himself said, was "jihad". It is conquest and subjugation. But, as I have tried to point out, you refuse to look at the facts. Instead you are projecting your own views rather than *listening to what the jihadis say*.
It's just not on to treat millions as non-citizens and potential criminals.
False again. Muslims can do whatever they won't in their own personal lives, and they can believe all the stupid superstition they like. What they don't have the right to do is to impose their laws but altering ours. Yet that is exactly what they are doing, slowly but surely, using things like UN HRC Resolution 16/18 to limit Free Speech. I'm not suggesting taking away any Muslim rights. All I'm saying is that they should have *equal* rights with everyone else - no less, but also no *more* rights (privileges). That means when they do their honor killings and murder defenseless young girls for wearing make-up they get subjected to the same laws we do, not allowed to go free due to 'cultural' excuses. When mobs of them intimidate normal citizens and hold placards calling for sedition and overthrow of democracy then they should be prosecuted like everyone else.
You've been missing the mark by trying to connect me with things I've never even heard about, this has all been about you and your problem where you have been tricked into continuing the criminals work for them.
I can't help it if you don't know anything. Doesn't that worry you that you don't know any of the facts, figures or references I'm able to cite? Surely you should be reading what I'm providing instead of remaining woefully ignorant of what is going on. I promise you that nothing I've posted is anything other than facts and unbiased analysis of the Qur'an etc. You see, the fact you don't actually know anything on the subject and you are just going on what apologists have said mean that you are being manipulated so easily (something the apologists for evil rely on). If you go back to my original post and actually watch the videos and read the citations I've been posting you will finally understand that the arguments counter-jihadis are making are not evil or Nazi in nature. We simply want to preserve the human rights of all people, which are under dire threat by Islam (which is a political ideology that is close to National Socialism and Soviet Communism - both of which suppress the human rights of people in their system and also external to their system).
... you have been tricked into continuing the criminals work for them
Actually, it is *you* that is working for them. The fact you know so little about the subject means you have been manipulated into apologizing for the evil of Islam (which you don't understand at all) and against human rights - yet in your ignorance you somehow think you are promoting human rights. This is simply delusional - but is exactly what the manipulators on the political Left and Islamist allies (with whom they have a common cause) want you to do. Too bad you can't see through it. Hopefully when you actually learn more stuff you will come to see the Truth.
That's why I saw your listing of you bio as just sad and not your intended result of making me respect you.
You are not very self aware of your own actions, are you? I said you were "anti-scientific" because you refuse to look at new facts (clearly, I've referen
Hey dhimmi, do you like grabbing your ankles for terrorists? These are the guys you back (read the Qur'anic verse, used to justify this):
http://www.timesofisrael.com/alleged-us-spy-crucified-in-yemen/
Don't go too wild on your applause of the Islamists for a mere crucifiction - there is so much more of this every day, so you get plenty of opportunities to demonstrate your "tolerance" by making excuses for these guys.