Occupation 101

[Marc39]

Do you look forward to the Land of Israel extending from the Nile to the Euphrates?

No. But you only ask questions. You don't seem to answer them, and you pull statements out of context to ask your own questions.

Do you consider that civil George?

Probably not, Ropey.

Civility has been in short supply on this forum for some time now.

As far as answers, I think I'll let the "language teacher" suggest one:

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.

"Israel refused to attend the session.

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980.

"The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

A Middle East Peace...

Chomsky is a language teacher, not an authority on the Middle East.

No wonder you have zero reputational points, Muslim trash

Prominent Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh is an authority on the Middle East.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Israelis Want Peace...

I don’t care who is in government in Israel. There is a partner. And my partner is the Jewish people. Why? Because a majority of Jews have already accepted a 2 state solution. I see a majority of Jews who don’t care anymore about Gaza. I see a majority of Jews who want to disengage from the Palestinians. I see a majority of Jews over the last 15 years marching toward moderation and pragmatism. I don’t know today of one Jewish mother that wants to send her son back to the streets of Ramallah or Gaza. I don’t know of one Jew who wants to control the lives of the Palestinians and run their education and health system. Sadly though, while the Jewish public has been marching towards pragmatism and realism and moderation, on the Arab side the message remains no, no and no.

Abu Toameh: What the Western Media Misses | FrumForum


Khaled Abu Toameh: Pallies Don't Want Peace

If Hamas say they want to destroy you, you have no reason not to believe them. And if Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy you, there’s no need to start analysing what he means by that. Stop fooling ourselves and if anyone thinks that Hamas will ever recognise Israel’s right to exist, you’re also living in an illusion. Take it from their mouth directly…the PLO however is different – they will tell you one thing in English and then another in Arabic.

Abu Toameh: What the Western Media Misses | FrumForum

 

[Ropey]

You cite a self-hating Jew and one who is at the extreme end. Try to find a middle George.

I will not quote your sides extremists. It is not useful to discussion. I see now that this place is not about discussing really.

It's more about stagnancy and both sides have their share of contempt and fear. I may disagree with your view, but I can and do separate person from personality.

Not that the above will change anything with those who are so far at the end of the divide as to cite such a source.

Of course both sides have their detractors. At that time, Israel was in short supply of leaders with courage. Now both sides do not have a leader with courage, but you seem to think it is only one side.

I will tell you this George.

With Hezbollah and over twenty thousand troops on the border of South Lebanon. With Hamas and Gaza allowing both Al-Qaida and the Shia along with all their other fragmented groups to arm with resources from Iran via both waterways and Syria land routes. With Iran moving toward the creation of military nuclear piles. With Syria arming itself from both Iran and North Korea...

Israeli people and their politicians have decided it must either be a middle east wide peace, or no peace talks.

The last thing Israel wants is another Iranian proxy on its borders, and at this time, it has much Iranian involvement there as well as Al-Qaida all over the Jordanian border.

No, Israel sees a war coming and the cabinet is not willing to talk peace unless the peace talks are fully mid-east wide.

That's just the reality of the arena. The Israeli also refuse to negotiate as if they are loser of all the wars they have won.

The Palestinians refuse to negotiate with the Jews unless there is an intermediary. The Israeli say that they must be willing to negotiate face to face.

And not only them. The entire middle east. I think that will only happen after a large war. That is the proof of history.

Regardless of what a self-hating Jew says. I will not post what Asra Nomani says about Muslims. She's far to deep in the other end of where you seem to be, with the definitive word being 'seem'.

Do you look forward to the Land of Israel extending from the Nile to the Euphrates?

No. But you only ask questions. You don't seem to answer them, and you pull statements out of context to ask your own questions.

Do you consider that civil George?

Probably not, Ropey.

Civility has been in short supply on this forum for some time now.

As far as answers, I think I'll let the "language teacher" suggest one:

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.

"Israel refused to attend the session.

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980.

"The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

A Middle East Peace...

 

[Marc39]

It's more about stagnancy and both sides have their share of contempt and fear.

Well, no. It's ok to assign blame where it is due...

Israeli Arab Journalist Khaled Abu Toameh...

If Hamas say they want to destroy you, you have no reason not to believe them. And if Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy you, there’s no need to start analysing what he means by that. Stop fooling ourselves and if anyone thinks that Hamas will ever recognise Israel’s right to exist, you’re also living in an illusion. Take it from their mouth directly…the PLO however is different – they will tell you one thing in English and then another in Arabic

Khaled Abu Toameh...

I don’t care who is in government in Israel. There is a partner. And my partner is the Jewish people. Why? Because a majority of Jews have already accepted a 2 state solution. I see a majority of Jews who don’t care anymore about Gaza. I see a majority of Jews who want to disengage from the Palestinians. I see a majority of Jews over the last 15 years marching toward moderation and pragmatism. I don’t know today of one Jewish mother that wants to send her son back to the streets of Ramallah or Gaza. I don’t know of one Jew who wants to control the lives of the Palestinians and run their education and health system. Sadly though, while the Jewish public has been marching towards pragmatism and realism and moderation, on the Arab side the message remains no, no and no.

Abu Toameh: What the Western Media Misses | FrumForum

 

[Ropey]

I think that others who read these pages will understand what I am saying. I am not lacking in clarity when I say that you clearly stated two major problems with Islam. (to my view)

First being there can be only one and that one is yours. Above and beyond any of the other sects or splits.

That will and has transitioned to other parts of the globe than the middle east. Since it has, it is in the flow, not the ebb.

Since this is the case, all the entries of your ideology must fall to the subjugation sooner or later.

That's the reason for the border wars that you blame on the large countries whose borders Muslims have been systematically encroaching since six hundred CE.

So, secondly, it's a clear case of Muslim flow into areas that they are not indigent.

So now you say you don't understand? Come on, you are not that dim.

I put forward that you don't want to understand, but you can simply just disagree. When you say you don't understand, you are saying, by extension, that you are not even dimly able to grasp the above extensions to Muslim encroachment by both border war and silent sedition.

Now, with present interpretation, that's a chilling reminder of Islam's intractability.

So, the Uyghur also do not practice Islam correctly if they institute usury? In its purest form? The one you so conveniently hold?

The one that supersedes all others?

Wait!

I've heard this before. ...

Any individual who makes a conscious decision to practice usury stands in clear violation of the commandments of Islam. I'm not sure what you're rambling about, nor can I say that I care.

 

[Ropey]

Regardless, both sides have had their chances. Would that there was more courage middle east wide. Would that there were more leaders willing to talk peace face to face.

But sadly, history shows that usually only happens when both sides are massively sickened after a war that has sickened both sides by the deaths.

With the middle east wide weapons buildup, history has never shown a desire for peace between warring sides engaged in those acts.

I go with history. Now that doesn't mean I am correct. No one knows where this ship laden with hate and fear will finally let anchor.

But the ship carries far more than the Arabians they call Palestinians and the Israeli.

I know one thing. More Arabs will die from Muslim attacks in Israel than Jews in Palestine. Or Iran. Or Syria, Or Lebanon...

And many Jews will die in this war. I was involved in Seventy Three. There were good reasons for the Jews to not look towards peace after Seventy Three. They still stand. No talks unless they are Middle East wide. Peace by inclusion.

Not exclusion...

It's more about stagnancy and both sides have their share of contempt and fear.

Well, no. It's ok to assign blame where it is due...

Israeli Arab Journalist Khaled Abu Toameh...

If Hamas say they want to destroy you, you have no reason not to believe them. And if Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy you, there’s no need to start analysing what he means by that. Stop fooling ourselves and if anyone thinks that Hamas will ever recognise Israel’s right to exist, you’re also living in an illusion. Take it from their mouth directly…the PLO however is different – they will tell you one thing in English and then another in Arabic

Khaled Abu Toameh...

I don’t care who is in government in Israel. There is a partner. And my partner is the Jewish people. Why? Because a majority of Jews have already accepted a 2 state solution. I see a majority of Jews who don’t care anymore about Gaza. I see a majority of Jews who want to disengage from the Palestinians. I see a majority of Jews over the last 15 years marching toward moderation and pragmatism. I don’t know today of one Jewish mother that wants to send her son back to the streets of Ramallah or Gaza. I don’t know of one Jew who wants to control the lives of the Palestinians and run their education and health system. Sadly though, while the Jewish public has been marching towards pragmatism and realism and moderation, on the Arab side the message remains no, no and no.

Abu Toameh: What the Western Media Misses | FrumForum

 

[Marc39]

Regardless, both sides have had their chances. Would that there was more courage middle east wide. Would that there were more leaders willing to talk peace face to face.

Yawn.

 

[Ropey]

I must be a fanatic then because to me Jordan is the so-called "Palestinian" state. Judea and Samaria should be annexed and with all the money being wasted on the "Palestinians" they could be relocated to Jordan.

Not so. Your definitive word is "should" and "could" and you took personal responsibility for your view.

If you were a fanatic that would not be the words you would use. It would be couched in absolutist and concrete terms.

ie.

Jordan IS the so-called "Palestinian" state. Judea and Samaria MUST be annexed and with all the money being wasted on the "Palestinians" they MUST be relocated to Jordan

There is no other way.

So I say no, you are not fanatically minded with the statement (below) you make.

to me Jordan is the so-called "Palestinian" state. Judea and Samaria should be annexed and with all the money being wasted on the "Palestinians" they could be relocated to Jordan.

 

[Ropey]

Inclusion Marc. Acceptance of intellectual views is the power of Democracy, not its weakness.

Regardless, both sides have had their chances. Would that there was more courage middle east wide. Would that there were more leaders willing to talk peace face to face.

Yawn.

 

[Ropey]

You say Islam is not an Arabic religion. Then there is a great chance for your kind to modernize the interpretations when the war comes to the middle east. For by that statement you distance yourself from the root, and that is where the problem lies. Islam can coexist with the world. If it overtakes the world, then it was meant to be. If it doesn't, then it wasn't.

The only legitimate interpretation of Islam is that which is based entirely on the Qur'an and the Sunnah; innovation in religious matters is forbidden.

Any individual who makes a conscious decision to practice usury stands in clear violation of the commandments of Islam.

Rather hard to modernize something that is forbidden. Thus my statement can not come to pass with your framework.

The second point is simply that you seem to see no problems with Muslim encroachment and see it as a legitimate struggle.

I say that this struggle has been going on for quite some time and is in a flow at the moment.

The proof is the response from the non Islamic countries that are in border wars with Islam who encroached, then moved to quiescence and who are now moving once again.

The fight is now being taken up by both sides and there will be greater responses in the future. You see it coming as well since you have mentioned the increased responses to Islam.

This is the start. A student of history should remember the last flow and ebb.

I do.

 

[Jos]

Yawn.

Time for your wet nurse to feed you before putting you to bed

 

[Marc39]

Yawn.

[SZE="3"]Time for your wet nurse to feed you before putting you to bed[/SIZE]

You solicit men on the internet, mariposa, but you don't want to suck a wet nurse.

Did you prostrate yourself to your pagan moon god allah, Mahoundian?

 

[Kalam]

That's the reason for the border wars that you blame on the large countries whose borders Muslims have been systematically encroaching since six hundred CE.

Not to nitpick, but I've corrected you on this point already -- Islam in the Caucasus predates Russian encroachment.

So, secondly, it's a clear case of Muslim flow into areas that they are not indigent.

Indigenous. Universalistic religions have always attracted converts or at least attempted to do so; this phenomenon is hardly unique to Islam. I fail to see why you consider this to be a major problem.

So now you say you don't understand? Come on, you are not that dim.

I put forward that you don't want to understand, but you can simply just disagree. When you say you don't understand, you are saying, by extension, that you are not even dimly able to grasp the above extensions to Muslim encroachment by both border war and silent sedition.

Your posts seem to have taken on a bit of a condescending tone, or maybe they've always been that way. In either case, I don't think that talking down to each other is going to facilitate any sort of mutual understanding.

 

[Marc39]

Indigenous. Universalistic religions have always attracted converts or at least attempted to do so; this phenomenon is hardly unique to Islam. I fail to see why you consider this to be a major problem.

No religion other than Islam places demands to convert or face death. No other religion makes conversion out of its religio na capital offense punishable by death

You're a sucker following a scam death cult concocted by an illiterate pedophile.

Why I left Islam
By Waleed Al-Husseini

Islam is an authoritarian religion that does not respect the individuals’ freedom of choice, which is easily noticeable from its barbaric verdicts such as stoning the adulterous, pushing the homosexuals off a cliff and killing the apostates for daring to express a different viewpoint. Then there is the plight of other religions’ followers in the Muslim State. Islam urges its followers to fight the infidels until they convert or agree to pay a tax known as "Jizya" per capita in total submission.The sacred texts in Islam also encourage blatant war and conquest of new territories to spread the religion of Muhammad, instead of using peaceful means to convey the message, relying only on a rational argumentative scheme; something that Islam, like any other religion for that matter, evidently lacks. It is simply a terrible insult to human values and a proof of unprecedented dementia.

I was flabbergasted when I learnt the commandments of Islam regarding the alliance and disavowal and the aberrant division of the world into believers and unbelievers, with all the outrageous provisions this implies for the "Dhimmis" and the” Jizya "! A man also has the right to correct his wife by beating her and / or deserting the marital bed if she refuses to submit to his will. She has no choice when it comes to satisfying his sexual desire whenever he feels like it, with no regard whatsoever of her feelings and desires.


I am not a feminist and I am not one of those who defend women passionately against the countless forms of injustice they have suffered for centuries because of religion, but I have a mother, a sister and a lover and I cannot stand for them to be humiliated and stigmatized in this bone-chilling way, because they are my dearest and I love them too much to treat them with this flawed and nauseating manner which debunks undoubtedly the claim that Islam is a religion of equality and freedom! All forms of artistic expressions are banned in Islam: music, singing, dancing, painting, sculpture, acting, but also literature, poetry, philosophy and the use of logic!


Muhammad was no different than barbaric thugs who slaughtered, robbed and raped women, there are many proofs in the Sunnah, I invite you to do your homework before accusing me of lying for the sole purpose of damaging the image of the prophet of Islam. He was a sex maniac, and went around all the laws he has enacted to appease his voracious desire. He has torn humanity and imprisoned the nation with backward and outdated Bedouin laws. He accomplished no miracle that could prove his prophecy; all he had was a book showing strong similarities with the poetry of his contemporaries, full of scientific errors and philosophical dilemmas.

http://proud-a.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-i-left-islam.html

 

[Ropey]

I fail to see why you consider this to be a major problem.

I see the danger it poses to Israel. Islam is intractable. They will demand submission of Israel That's what they demand now.

This can be extended to the encroachment and silent sedition. It is why I have lobbied against the attempt to institute Sharia in Canada. I was there, commented and expounded on methods used by Muslims in Canada who are traveling back to Pakistan, etc. to marry their first cousins, come back and get permission by the Muslim council which would then allow dispensation.

Canada has legislated and enacted amendments against such council powers. Oh, you may fail to see it Kalam.

But it is clearly seen.

 

[Marc39]

I fail to see why you consider this to be a major problem.

I see the danger it poses to Israel. Islam is intractable. They will demand submission of Israel That's what they demand now.

This can be extended to the encroachment and silent sedition. It is why I have lobbied against the attempt to institute Sharia in Canada. I was there, commented and expounded on methods used by Muslims in Canada who are traveling back to Pakistan, etc. to marry their first cousins, come back and get permission by the Muslim council which would then allow dispensation.

Canada has legislated and enacted amendments against such council powers. Oh, you may fail to see it Kalam.

But it is clearly seen.

Islam = Fascism. Kalam is a brainwashed Islamic robot.

Ayatollah Khomeini...

Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under Allah's law (Sharia). … Islam says: 'Kill [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter their armies.' Islam says: 'Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors (jihadists)!' There are hundreds of other Koranic psalms and hadiths (sayings of the prophet) urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim. …Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.

 

[Kalam]

I see the danger it poses to Israel. Islam is intractable. They will demand submission of Israel That's what they demand now.

...Which brings us back to the point I made earlier about our disagreement over Israel. It seems to be the primary reason why Islam is anathema to Zionist Jews, including you.

This can be extended to the encroachment and silent sedition. It is why I have lobbied against the attempt to institute Sharia in Canada. I was there, commented and expounded on methods used by Muslims in Canada who are traveling back to Pakistan, etc. to marry their first cousins, come back and get permission by the Muslim council which would then allow dispensation.

Canada has legislated and enacted amendments against such council powers. Oh, you may fail to see it Kalam.

But it is clearly seen.

Remind me of how this affects you.

 

[Marc39]

I see the danger it poses to Israel. Islam is intractable. They will demand submission of Israel That's what they demand now.

...Which brings us back to the point I made earlier about our disagreement over Israel. It seems to be the primary reason why Islam is anathema to Zionist Jews, including you.

This can be extended to the encroachment and silent sedition. It is why I have lobbied against the attempt to institute Sharia in Canada. I was there, commented and expounded on methods used by Muslims in Canada who are traveling back to Pakistan, etc. to marry their first cousins, come back and get permission by the Muslim council which would then allow dispensation.

Canada has legislated and enacted amendments against such council powers. Oh, you may fail to see it Kalam.

But it is clearly seen.

Remind me of how this affects you.

Kalam, you're a brainwashed jihadist robot, so, let me inform everyone of the Islamic doctrine of dar al-Islam dar al-Harb that compels all Muslims to kill all non-Muslims unless they convert or submit to Islam.

Allahu fucku.

Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis...

For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power. In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam), in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Power-Religion-Politics-Middle/dp/019514421X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291876649&sr=8-1[/ame]

 

[Kalam]

I fail to see why you consider this to be a major problem.

I see the danger it poses to Israel...

Oh, and you may want to tell that Jewish gadfly Marc39 that I don't read anything he posts. I tried telling him myself, but the poor little guy didn't quite get it in spite of his 5 Princeton degrees or whatever it is that he claims to have these days.

 

[Marc39]

I fail to see why you consider this to be a major problem.

I see the danger it poses to Israel...

Oh, and you may want to tell that Jewish gadfly Marc39 that I don't read anything he posts. I tried telling him myself, but the poor little guy didn't quite get it in spite of his 5 Princeton degrees or whatever it is that he claims to have these days.

You read ever syllable I post, Muhammadan.

The Jew is vastly superior to the Muslim. You learn from me, jihadist dog.

 

[Ropey]

Your posts seem to have taken on a bit of a condescending tone, or maybe they've always been that way. In either case, I don't think that talking down to each other is going to facilitate any sort of mutual understanding.

I'm not sure what you're rambling about, nor can I say that I care.

That seems rather disingenuous. Kalam. I ramble and you don't care? This is conducive to lateral discussions? Remember when I said that (above) your leaving this thread because you didn't like the nature of my post since it didn't fit with your view of the topic, was patterned.

I showed that there was an arguable case that it did fit. You then said you were off, and that the conversation was over unless I followed your command to start a new conversation. *s*

I mentioned that it seemed much like the negotiations with the Israeli and the Arabians who call themselves Palestinians.

So Kalam, you may wish to look in your own back yard. When you say you don't understand what I am talking about and then couch it in terms of me "rambling", I put forward taht you are far more condescending than my challenging of your perspective when you say you do not see something that I see. That's simply a part of discussion.

I am not looking down at you since I am a believer in lateral communications, but a stronger believer in challenging others views.

Your answers have strengthened my view of the danger with allowing such high percentages of Arabians inside of Israel. This will have to be addressed with any negotiations.

Whether you are Arabian or not, your view that Islam is intractable, and can not be modified is the same view as the Sunni and the Shia.