Bush calls for the end of Israeli 'occupation' of Arab Lands

[Monk-Eye]

Vehemence

"Vehemence"

1/ "spew" is right.
2/ the christian west (westism?) instead of perhaps threatening to take over the world actually did it already. settling its people and ruling in almost every single part of the world, barring russia. perhaps you could tell us about that too?

Political liberty versus repression?
Even a fool is expected to know the difference.

3/ a or b ?

Do you understand that a or b require articles for evaluation?
Do you want to be accepted as credible?

4/ when you say arabism, who exactly do you mean? The residents of Deir Yassin? Hebron? Those people?

Would you like an answer according to both genetic religions of israelism and arabism?
Or would you like an answer according to secularism?
Or would you like an answer according to social darwinism where outbreeding and strength decides final truth?

 

[G-Man]

Absolutely nothing you have presented shows that there was ever a sovereign nation known as Palestine prior to 1947 with it's own government. Everything you mention defines a region or discusses the future.

Tell you what, I'll make it easier. Between the years 1 AD and 1947 AD name one person who was the leader/President/Prime Minister/whatever of the country of Palestine.

I think you missed my point. I have been arguing that the historical past should NOT be used to make huge alterations to geography and result in the mass exodus of thousands of people. Why would I be interested in 1AD

A Palestine existed, that is a fact. If it did not then why did the Zionists and the UN refer to the partition of Palestine? Is this just a coincidence?

As for a leader at the time - as the Brits had a mandate to rule it I guess they must have had a governor or consular or something but a people who are ruled over do not normally have their own leader in charge.

No they did not, prior to 1947 when the Partition Plan was enacted, creating the nation of Palestine (if Palestinians had actually set up their nation).

'Palestine' was referred to by both the Zionists and the UN prior to the establishment of the Partition Plan in 1947. The suggestion that 'Palestine' and the idea of there being a 'Palestine' only came into existence in 1947 is wholly incorrect.

And that is your prerogative, yet since there was no country there prior to the partition, the only changes that happened were population shifts, mostly because of Arabs choosing to leave. Nations were created not altered.

Totally incorrect. Arabs and Jews left their homes because of the partition and also because of fear of being attacked. Why would anyone leave their home and land voluntarily.

The land was administered by the British, a member of the UN. They presented the issue to the UN for discussion and, as it was their area, agreed to allow the UN to make recommendations, which they accepted and enacted...as the legal administrators of the area.

As the British mandate to rule had an expiry date on what basis do you believe they had the authority to accept and bind the Arab population AFTER the expiration date of their own mandate?

No. Jews took no land that was owned by the Arabs. Read UNSCOP. No land was given to Jews that Arabs owned. Any Arab owned land that fell inside the borders of the new nation of Israel, was now part of Israel, but the Arabs on that land still owned it. There were some instances of Arabs being forced from their land, something that should not have occurred. However, most Arabs who left their land, did so of their own volition. The aggression I discuss is that of the 5 Arab States that attacked Israel in 1948. This was the initial aggression, and it was perpetrated by the Arabs.

People still have keys to homes in which they no longer live and are occupied by Israelis now. Is this not the taking of land owned by another?

Truthfully, I believe that this is a separate debate unto itself that must encompass issues around secular and religious Judaism and Zionism. It would be interesting to debate this, but I'd say it's a little beyond the scope of this thread.

Perhaps and we can leave for later. However a simple yes or no will suffice for now. Do you believe all religions should have their own state or only the Jewish religion?

Yes really. A settlement will be reached when current situations are resolved. Any discussion of whether or not the partition should have occurred prevents resolution by bogging discussion down in assessing blame. Discussing whether Israel's creation was just is irrelevant to any discussion of solutions. It is only relevant to discussions like these, here.

Solutions are normally based upon the actions of both parties prior to the current situation and also what is a fair settlement going forward. Attempts to 'hide' the injustices already inflicted, instead of suitably compensating for them, should be brought to light and discouraged as appropriate.

Israel's boundaries can be defined during negotiations, Israel's boundaries have been defined, several times, only needing to change due to aggressive action by Arabs. Under international law, it is legal for a country to occupy or annex territory, if it was obtained during a defensive war, until such time as either a peace accord is established or the area is no longer a threat to the occupying country. The latter of these conditions has not been met. The former will be, hopefully, through negotiations. This will help define Israel's boundaries. I have posted this legal information earlier in this thread.

Continued...

I thought you said the land was 'disputed' and so they could build settlements on it but now above you are saying something different. Am I reading wrong

 

[G-Man]

Continued...In this case the administrator and owner are terms to be used interchangeably. The British owned the land, having obtained it after WWI.

The Brits only gave themselves a mandate to rule Palestine for a defined period. They never claimed ownership of the land at any point.

This was what was set up in the Mandate in 1920 and was the purpose of the Mandate. The immigration process was established through the Mandate. The areas immigrated where not owned by Arabs. "Should have" is not relevant.

Prior to 1920 exactly what areas in the ME were not 'owned' by Arabs?

They are based on international law. See my earlier post for this information.

On what basis? Is the land on which they are built 'disputed' or has it been seized during war? I'm not too sure what your position is here so I can't comeback.

Terrorist attacks and anti-Israeli aggression did not start with Hamas. It goes back decades with Arafat and many others.

I don't believe I said otherwise.

See above. Palestinians organizations have been attacking Israel long before Sharon was in power.

A 'defensive' war against criminal aggression perhaps?

I think that's three agreements, now.

On a roll......!

And if you posted these numbers, I would be unimpressed. Those that enact aggression have no right to complain when they receive greater losses from retaliation. If the Palestinians want more balance, depose Hamas, recognize Israel, denounce and stop the aggression, and police their militants. If with all this, Israel continues to militarily attack the Palestinian people, they deserve to be retaliated upon, strongly.

Its a war crime to attack a civilian population. If Israel wants to wipe every Palestinian of the face of the earth it should just come clean about it and then we can put it up on a par with Hamas and denounce them both.

The settlements are legal, though inhibit the peace process and should be dismantled.

Legal on what basis?

The 'war' will stop when security is established. It will then be secure to settle land disputes.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe the war will end until both sides agree re: the land first.

As long as Israel's security is in serious question from the occupied territories, Israel should not change their current policy. With daily rocket attacks and recent suicide bomber, security is not occurring. The status quo should remain.

The status quo changes nothing and peace will not come about if this is maintained. Perhaps a true reflection of Israeli policy in the end.

I knew you were joking, hence my :mrgreen:. This may be a heated debate, but it's not acrimonious (as some in this forum can be). We may disagree, but I got your humor. :mrgreen:

Ok cool - some people can take that the wrong way and I just wanted to make sure! Obviously I don't agree with your position but I'm not just here to insult people - I'm putting across my point of view.

I disagree, and I think I've presented a very good case.

Better than most to be fair but when you're in the wrong you're in the wrong.......:lol:

I don't see you posting much in other forums (unless I've just missed your posts). I must go look.

I wish I had the time to. I can only post very infrequently and having started this thread I feel compelled to 'stay loyal' to it! In the future I hope to add my 10 cents to the 'breaking news' and 'economic' posts but only when time allows me to do so.

Notice an important part of my statement: "and other militant groups". Not just Hamas.

Hamas has little (if any) control over the other groups. They spend have their time fighting with Israel and the other half fighting with each other. Hamas cannot be blamed for the actions of these other groups - they have their own identity.

Your religion comment wasn't offensive, at all, so don't worry. I am not a 'fundie'. If you believe, that's cool, if you don't that's cool, too. Either way I won't tell you what to believe, and please give me the same courtesy (I love that word).

Well I won't try and convert you (is that correct for a non-believer?) if you don't try and convert me :lol:

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Vehemence

"Vehemence"
Political liberty versus repression?
Even a fool is expected to know the difference.
Do you understand that a or b require articles for evaluation?
Do you want to be accepted as credible?
Would you like an answer according to both genetic religions of israelism and arabism?
Or would you like an answer according to secularism?
Or would you like an answer according to social darwinism where outbreeding and strength decides final truth?

the empirial adventures of europe were about political liberty? lol. back to school for you, mister eye.

you already know what a or b refers to, why cant you answer the question?

i am credible, far more than you. thats helped by the fact that for a start i can speak plain english and be understood by all.

no id just like you to tell us exactly who you're referring to when you say 'arabism should render israel to the israelis'. the hebron residents? the dier yassin residents? arabs of the west bank? should they just leave and give all thats left to israel? its a simple question.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Standard Deviation

"Standard Deviation"

2/ the christian west (westism?) instead of perhaps threatening to take over the world actually did it already. settling its people and ruling in almost every single part of the world, barring russia. perhaps you could tell us about that too?

the empirial adventures of europe were about political liberty? lol. back to school for you, mister eye.

i am credible, far more than you. thats helped by the fact that for a start i can speak plain english and be understood by all.

Who took over the world?
Is that a reference to brittish empirialism? and they did it in the name of christianity?
Speak plain english so you will be understood. :lol:

My ability to articulate direct meaning is excellent however, my penchant is for innuindo, often in opposition to people's ignorance of metaphor, overwhelms me to demonstration.

you already know what a or b refers to, why cant you answer the question?

No, otherwise it would have been answered.
It is nonsense, it was introduced exactly as "a or b" without reference to what a or b was supposed to be.
Feel free to direct a legitimate interrogative.

no id just like you to tell us exactly who you're referring to when you say 'arabism should render israel to the israelis'. the hebron residents? the dier yassin residents? arabs of the west bank? should they just leave and give all thats left to israel? its a simple question.

It is not a simple question.
Arabism acknowledges the promised land of the torah from musa as an establishment for its own legitimacy, even as a legitimacy of its own patriarch in deity.
The peoples of israel, the practices of israel, the governing body of isreal is not overruled or abrogated by arabism.
On religious grounds, yes, arabism shuts the hell up, and gets the hell out, and at the least, it peaceably resides as "noahide protectorates" (Is that not funny, when in the proverbial, "The shoe is on the other foot"?).

On secular grounds; until arabism shuts the hell up, ceases agression, and accepts that israel is to exist, autonomous, as a self governing body, even if israel is limited by current boundaries, there are no secular grounds.

On grounds of social darwinism, outbreeding and strength decide final truth, and whatever residents end up with is what they end up with.

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Standard Deviation

"Standard Deviation"
Who took over the world?
Is that a reference to brittish empirialism? and they did it in the name of christianity?
Speak plain english so you will be understood. :lol:

My ability to articulate direct meaning is excellent however, my penchant is for innuindo, often in opposition to people's ignorance of metaphor, overwhelms me to demonstration.
No, otherwise it would have been answered.
It is nonsense, it was introduced exactly as "a or b" without reference to what a or b was supposed to be.
Feel free to direct a legitimate interrogative.
It is not a simple question.
Arabism acknowledges the promised land of the torah from musa as an establishment for its own legitimacy, even as a legitimacy of its own patriarch in deity.
The peoples of israel, the practices of israel, the governing body of isreal is not overruled or abrogated by arabism.
On religious grounds, yes, arabism shuts the hell up, and gets the hell out, and at the least, it peaceably resides as "noahide protectorates" (Is that not funny, when in the proverbial, "The shoe is on the other foot"?).

On secular grounds; until arabism shuts the hell up, ceases agression, and accepts that israel is to exist, autonomous, as a self governing body, even if israel is limited by current boundaries, there are no secular grounds.

On grounds of social darwinism, outbreeding and strength decide final truth, and whatever residents end up with is what they end up with.

who took over the world? the europeans of course! and they did it sometimes in the name of christianity and sometimes just in the name of conquest, just like the arabs. thats what arabism is all about right?

why the need for metaphor? is not true genius the ability to explain complex ideas simply? if so, why cant you try for simplicity? dont you have the smarts?

if youre going to participate in threads perhaps you should read them first before you speak to us in your metaphors...
From Why I loath Israel
Re : a or b;

Re: Clarity

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk-Eye
"Clarity"


Urs need ask.

It seemed to me the secular realm is secured with legal record.
The resolution unmet is recognition of writeful entitlement, extrinsic personage, separated institutions, genetic religions.

First of all, what does the 2wave symbol mean?

Again im having trouble interpreting here, especially as you dont even bother answering the questions ive asked of you.

Here's a better example;
If you had to choose, when asking for a big mac and fries would you say;

a/ Can I have a big mac and fries please?

or

b/ In the fullness of time in accordance with the standard parameter of this locality the question must be asked here by this temporary perhaps one time patron presently feeling a lacking of sustenance around the bowel, and above the bowels, the stomach area towards you the cashier holder, temporary/ perhaps permanent employee representing the public limited company known as McDonalds if it may be possible for an exchange to occur on this day with your co-operation of an agreed amount of the locally accepted currency for the grilled concoction of meat bread, lettuc tomato and mayonnaise given in double floor arrangement and held in thin foam box plus a carton half containing a number of slices of potatoe dipped in hot cooking fat for a period of more than 10 minutes but less than 60, then kept under a heat lamp until temporary patrons such as myself may or not choose to seek a similar exchange arrangement?

which is it monk-eye, a or b?

It is indeed a simple question, who exactly in the west bank for example do you want to shut up and leave etc etc?
Can you even specify anyone in particular or will you continue to say 'arabism must do this and arabism must do that'?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Perls And Swine

"Perls And Swine"

who took over the world? the europeans of course! and they did it sometimes in the name of christianity and sometimes just in the name of conquest, just like the arabs. thats what arabism is all about right?

Perhaps.
Arabism is pretexed on a genetic religion, as self resigned practices and traditions integrated with a system of government, for the preservation of a patriarchal lineage of peoples (arabs).
Arabism did not prescribed a "promised land", but as a property of the religion, it acknowledges the precepts of isreal.

Israelism is also a genetic religion; with exception, isrealism has a prescribed land.

A distinction exists in the conjecture of the

Rightly Guided Caliphs (link)
The first four caliphs are particularly significant to modern intra-Islamic debates: for Sunni Muslims, they are models of righteous rule; for Shia Muslims, the first three of the four were usurpers.

To the sunni, the first four held the truth of arabism, it was a religion for arabs - period.
The larger populace was to be ruled by a minority of arab aristocracy.
So yes, arabism is somewhat like any other racial supremacist's attempt to conquest the world, but it acknowledged israel.
conquer's notation of the arab sunni perspective, to me, is valid.

The shia arose from dissension of the larger populace which optioned to convert to escape dhimmi taxation and rule by the arab aristocracy.
The shia incorrectly sought to universalize arabism, and thus we have the misplaced understanding of genetic religion and present ignorants of the day.

why the need for metaphor? is not true genius the ability to explain complex ideas simply? if so, why cant you try for simplicity? dont you have the smarts?

There were no metaphors here.
This was straight forward assault on lies of religious principle.

It is indeed a simple question, who exactly in the west bank for example do you want to shut up and leave etc etc?
Can you even specify anyone in particular or will you continue to say 'arabism must do this and arabism must do that'?

Again, my recitations have been consistent and clear.
Anyone on the west bank claiming that arabism is entitled to israel should shut up and or leave.
There is no religious foundation in arabism to claim israel, in fact it is the exact opposite.
That has been repeated, and repeated, by myself ad-nauseum.
But you have ignored it repeatedly, and repeatedly, ad-nauseum.

Only after there is no religious argument from arabism can a secular argument exist.
As the arabism religious argument prevails, that is why there is no sympathy from me, or israel.

Otherwise, others have been endeavoring, and prevailing, in the secular debate, which is not my focus.

Additionally, my references are to moral relativism, perceptionism, plain old naturalism, survival of the fittest, prevalent throughout history, which leads me to mock and laugh hysterically (from primordial madness), at your whimpering cries for a resolution of truth.

The weight of your criticisms, in light of my constant reiteration of three basic issues, which have eluded you, not because they have not been stated clearly, but because they reference information you are without an understanding for, is not my ineptitude.

if youre going to participate in threads perhaps you should read them first before you speak to us in your metaphors...
From Why I loath Israel Re : a or b;

Oh, that, I ignored that question as it seemed ridiculous, obvious, pointless, and altogether a baseless criticism.
You should probably focus on less extremes of triviality.

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Perls And Swine

"Perls And Swine"
Perhaps.
Arabism is pretexed on a genetic religion, as self resigned practices and traditions integrated with a system of government, for the preservation of a patriarchal lineage of peoples (arabs).
Arabism did not prescribed a "promised land", but as a property of the religion, it acknowledges the precepts of isreal.

Israelism is also a genetic religion; with exception, isrealism has a prescribed land.

A distinction exists in the conjecture of the

To the sunni, the first four held the truth of arabism, it was a religion for arabs - period.
The larger populace was to be ruled by a minority of arab aristocracy.
So yes, arabism is somewhat like any other racial supremacist's attempt to conquest the world, but it acknowledged israel.
conquer's notation of the arab sunni perspective, to me, is valid.

The shia arose from dissension of the larger populace which optioned to convert to escape dhimmi taxation and rule by the arab aristocracy.
The shia incorrectly sought to universalize arabism, and thus we have the misplaced understanding of genetic religion and present ignorants of the day.

There were no metaphors here.
This was straight forward assault on lies of religious principle.

Again, my recitations have been consistent and clear.
Anyone on the west bank claiming that arabism is entitled to israel should shut up and or leave.
There is no religious foundation in arabism to claim israel, in fact it is the exact opposite.
That has been repeated, and repeated, by myself ad-nauseum.
But you have ignored it repeatedly, and repeatedly, ad-nauseum.

Only after there is no religious argument from arabism can a secular argument exist.
As the arabism religious argument prevails, that is why there is no sympathy from me, or israel.

Otherwise, others have been endeavoring, and prevailing, in the secular debate, which is not my focus.

Additionally, my references are to moral relativism, perceptionism, plain old naturalism, survival of the fittest, prevalent throughout history, which leads me to mock and laugh hysterically (from primordial madness), at your whimpering cries for a resolution of truth.

The weight of your criticisms, in light of my constant reiteration of three basic issues, which have eluded you, not because they have not been stated clearly, but because they reference information you are without an understanding for, is not my ineptitude.

Oh, that, I ignored that question as it seemed ridiculous, obvious, pointless, and altogether a baseless criticism.
You should probably focus on less extremes of triviality.

arabism is not islam, even mohammed said that i think. but i appreciate your attempts to speak against the claims of those with an islamic view of the conflict. yet none here have ever defended those claims, so why do you bother?

sure islamics and arabs have acknowledged isreal. but thats no reason to dispense with the normal claims of those who live there and have lived who claim not out of islam but out of themselves and the desires of their own people.

youre the one who speaks of your desire to communicate in metaphors, not me.

if you think all this conflict is about is survival of the fittest then why not say so? in fact why do you object to any of it? from settlements to rifles, from hijackings, stone throwers and suicide bombers its all just a play of the eternal game for dominance among animals. right?
as such, since the human notions of morals and truth are laughable in your view why take sides? surely its just all part of the struggle and whoever wins will win. right?


i understand your viewpoint perfectly well. given this is a debate engaged in the secular format, why do you invade with your religious focus? is it because your side is failing so badly in the secular debate that you dont wish to be involved in the rear guard action but prefer to sit atop the furthest hill spouting about religion, safe from criticism, never winning a point and never losing one?


yet its such a simple question, a or b? i wish to know if you use the language you type in normal conversation or are you a trivial charlatan trying to demonstrate to everyone how clever you are by typing metaphors instead of the usual prose?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Pathological

"Pathological"

arabism is not islam, even mohammed said that i think. but i appreciate your attempts to speak against the claims of those with an islamic view of the conflict. yet none here have ever defended those claims, so why do you bother?

I do not care what mohammed may have ignorantly purposed about the universality of the genetic religion of arabism.
Any such claim that arabism is a universal religion is a blasphemous, inconsistent, contemptuous lie!

One thread over, in discussion, it was pointed out that the interjection of arabism into the secular debate has undermined international authority and stalemated resolution.

Perhaps none here has defended the claims, however, the bastardized concepts of the genetic religion of arabism are precisely the crux of the issue.

sure islamics and arabs have acknowledged isreal. but thats no reason to dispense with the normal claims of those who live there and have lived who claim not out of islam but out of themselves and the desires of their own people.

Now I am confused, arabism does or does not acknowledge isreal?

And when the latter (a normal claim extrinsic to arabism) presents itself, it is acknowledged and rendered to the secular discussion.

youre the one who speaks of your desire to communicate in metaphors, not me.

There was little metaphor used in this debate.
Begin on page one of the thread, my language was direct, you simply did not understand it.

if you think all this conflict is about is survival of the fittest then why not say so? in fact why do you object to any of it? from settlements to rifles, from hijackings, stone throwers and suicide bombers its all just a play of the eternal game for dominance among animals. right?
as such, since the human notions of morals and truth are laughable in your view why take sides? surely its just all part of the struggle and whoever wins will win. right?

Truth can be relative and my perspective can still matter - to me.
As stated, my perspective is that israel represents the liberty of an individual seeking self autonomy against a collective authoritarian, which is the arabism majority.
As a global issue, arabism as government over genetically non-arabs and non-arab lands, should be removed.
Arabism is not for non-arabs.

i understand your viewpoint perfectly well. given this is a debate engaged in the secular format, why do you invade with your religious focus? is it because your side is failing so badly in the secular debate that you dont wish to be involved in the rear guard action but prefer to sit atop the furthest hill spouting about religion, safe from criticism, never winning a point and never losing one?

Well, it is not entirely a debate of secular format.
The debate is a critique of bush's bedoin frot buddies, and their depraved understanding of what and what is not arab lands.
If isreal comes down to arab lands and arabs, it comes down to genetic religion, and if that is insufficient, it reverts to a history of truth relativism.

yet its such a simple question, a or b? i wish to know if you use the language you type in normal conversation or are you a trivial charlatan trying to demonstrate to everyone how clever you are by typing metaphors instead of the usual prose?

Verily, you are laboring about my use of metaphor, without example.
I may use metaphor to be intentionally vague, or to say something I cannot otherwise directly state due to getting demerits.
Often contrary, I usually demystify the meaning of metaphors such as the greatest one of all - an afterlife.

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Pathological

Pathological"
I do not care what mohammed may have ignorantly purposed about the universality of the genetic religion of arabism.
Any such claim that arabism is a universal religion is a blasphemous, inconsistent, contemptuous lie!

id say his little finger knew more about arabs, arabism and islam than youll ever know. what you care is of little consequence. all that matters is what agreements you can come to with others by persuasion and good argument.

One thread over, in discussion, it was pointed out that the interjection of arabism into the secular debate has undermined international authority and stalemated resolution.

interesting point. id however that in fact israel has undermined that authority by not recognising it. and that hamas etc etc are but a bit player in the game. especially now trapped in gaza as they are.

Perhaps none here has defended the claims, however, the bastardized concepts of the genetic religion of arabism are precisely the crux of the issue.

given that the plo and the pa are a secular body thats just not true.

Now I am confused, arabism does or does not acknowledge isreal?

youre the one who said it, you tell me!

And when the latter (a normal claim extrinsic to arabism) presents itself, it is acknowledged and rendered to the secular discussion.

can we have one example?

There was little metaphor used in this debate.
Begin on page one of the thread, my language was direct, you simply did not understand it.

ok no metaphor, plenty of bull but no metaphor. in fact just harping on about arabism despite the fact that most palestinians and most anti-zionists on this site dont claim palestine on religious grounds but as the majority in the area.

Truth can be relative and my perspective can still matter - to me.

i like lemonade personally. why should that matter to you? it doesnt. however if I said there are reasons that you should like lemonade then that does matter to you. get it?
can you give me one good argument about why I should take the religious claims of the arabists and extremists seriously, or why i should think its important?

As stated, my perspective is that israel represents the liberty of an individual seeking self autonomy against a collective authoritarian, which is the arabism majority.

thats nice for it. within its green line it can do whatever it wants, dont you agree?

As a global issue, arabism as government over genetically non-arabs and non-arab lands, should be removed.
Arabism is not for non-arabs.

thats their business. we already tried running things for them, didnt work. in fact it brought the islamics and arabists to power. in fact the only place where we didnt gain deep influence, turkey, has fended off arabism for decades.

Well, it is not entirely a debate of secular format.
The debate is a critique of bush's bedoin frot buddies, and their depraved understanding of what and what is not arab lands.

no, its about bush calling for an end to the occupation.

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Pathological

by the way. captain courtesy. im hoping youll come back soon. once youve done some more reading from the israeli foreign ministry or some affiliate because this monkly eye person is tedious in the extreme. i dont even have to any reading!

 

[Monk-Eye]

Unrelenting

"Unrelenting"

id say his little finger knew more about arabs, arabism and islam than youll ever know.

And I'd say he lacked an understanding of genetic religion and its legitimate scope.

The conjecture for universalism of arabism is the "definition" of islam as "obedience to god".
Yet, promptly and anywhere the idea becomes ridiculous, through signatures of arab culture and its promotion of salvation through its practices (christian criticisms of israelism).
"The Women" (link)

"4.11": Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth after (the payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

"4.12": And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allah: and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.

Oh whooey! And that can be exemplified extensively.
Arabism is not a philosophy, it is not universal, it is an account of arab tradition, an attempt at leadership.

what you care is of little consequence. all that matters is what agreements you can come to with others by persuasion and good argument.

Libertarianism can be made into a universal philosophy, it forges onward.

interesting point. id however that in fact israel has undermined that authority by not recognising it. and that hamas etc etc are but a bit player in the game. especially now trapped in gaza as they are
....
given that the plo and the pa are a secular body thats just not true.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict#major issues between the two sides (link)
Israel cannot accept arabism refugees, that is not possible.
In order to exist as a house undivided under israelism, its peoples must be unified, autonomous.

youre the one who said it, you tell me!

Hammas? No. Arabism in general? Speculative - no. Some saudi arab sunnis? Perhaps. The PLO? It specified palestinian borders in a constitution draft; arafat recognized israel; modifications to the PLO charter calling for the destruction of isreal have not been presented.

And when the latter (a normal claim extrinsic to arabism) presents itself, it is acknowledged and rendered to the secular discussion.

can we have one example?

That would be the second element I have been pitching at you.

ok no metaphor, plenty of bull but no metaphor. in fact just harping on about arabism despite the fact that most palestinians and most anti-zionists on this site dont claim palestine on religious grounds but as the majority in the area.

In my mind, you have just substituted palestine into language for israel.

i like lemonade personally. why should that matter to you? it doesnt. however if I said there are reasons that you should like lemonade then that does matter to you. get it?

Lemonaid is not a fitting example for demands on people which they choose not to accept as law.

can you give me one good argument about why I should take the religious claims of the arabists and extremists seriously, or why i should think its important?

Their indistinctions between a raw democracy and liberal democracy are one example, their emphasis on sectarian government based on the koran and sharia law are another.

thats nice for it. within its green line it can do whatever it wants, dont you agree?

Whatever will be will be.

thats their business. we already tried running things for them, didnt work. in fact it brought the islamics and arabists to power. in fact the only place where we didnt gain deep influence, turkey, has fended off arabism for decades.

And imbicile europeans think that federalism at the highest level is an improvement to individualized liberty, such that turkey should join their union, with a requirement that the turkish military be handicapped in ensuring turkey remains secular, is deserving of the trojan horse destruction to follow - idiots.

no, its about bush calling for an end to the occupation.

Correct, and bush says what arabs tell him to say.

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Unrelenting

"Unrelenting"
And I'd say he lacked an understanding of genetic religion and its legitimate scope.

The conjecture for universalism of arabism is the "definition" of islam as "obedience to god".
Yet, promptly and anywhere the idea becomes ridiculous, through signatures of arab culture and its promotion of salvation through its practices (christian criticisms of israelism).

Id say he's stated the difference between arabism and islam quite clearly. Also who would you like to decide on legitimate scope?

Oh whooey! And that can be exemplified extensively.
Arabism is not a philosophy, it is not universal, it is an account of arab tradition, an attempt at leadership.

Not going to convert any time soon then are we?

Libertarianism can be made into a universal philosophy, it forges onward.

despite your lack of persuasive argument?

Israel cannot accept arabism refugees, that is not possible.
In order to exist as a house undivided under israelism, its peoples must be unified, autonomous.

just cant stop changing the subject can you? but ok, would you recommend the removal of the arab israelis within its borders? after all, sooner or later theyll outnumber the jews...

Hammas? No. Arabism in general? Speculative - no. Some saudi arab sunnis? Perhaps. The PLO? It specified palestinian borders in a constitution draft; arafat recognized israel; modifications to the PLO charter calling for the destruction of isreal have not been presented.

Ans israel refused to set final borders for the new state while it massively exapnded settlements.

more later....bet you cant wait.:lol:

 

[Monk-Eye]

Inn Difference

"Inn Difference"

Id say he's stated the difference between arabism and islam quite clearly. Also who would you like to decide on legitimate scope?

The fact is, there is no distinction between arabism and sharia law.
Thus, anyone of reason would say that advocates of arabism ignorantly think too highly of their simpleton concept paired with tripe, meaning they are full of crap up to the cultural supremacist ears.

Not going to convert any time soon then are we?
just cant stop changing the subject can you? but ok, would you recommend the removal of the arab israelis within its borders? after all, sooner or later theyll outnumber the jews...
Ans israel refused to set final borders for the new state while it massively exapnded settlements.

Right now, the isrealis could deport them to saudia arabia, it makes me no nevermind, arbism is that sickening.

despite your lack of persuasive argument?

What a pethetic ad-hominem, you do not appear to have a philosophy background.
Libertarianism is a philosophy, try looking it up.

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Unrelenting

That would be the second element I have been pitching at you.

one example please?

In my mind, you have just substituted palestine into language for israel.

is that the mandate jewish state or that plus jerusalem and the west bank?

Lemonaid is not a fitting example for demands on people which they choose not to accept as law.

lemonaid, kool aid, arab aid. what would be a fitting example?

Their indistinctions between a raw democracy and liberal democracy are one example, their emphasis on sectarian government based on the koran and sharia law are another.

so since the Palestinians are a mixed bunch, why should i take that seriously? also do you think because of these things they should all leave palestine for jordan and egypt?

Whatever will be will be.

exactly. so why do you bother?

And imbicile europeans think that federalism at the highest level is an improvement to individualized liberty, such that turkey should join their union, with a requirement that the turkish military be handicapped in ensuring turkey remains secular, is deserving of the trojan horse destruction to follow - idiots.

back to school again Mr Eye. europe doesnt want turkey, turkey wants europe.
we just want anyone thats demanding to join be like us and not liable to become a junta led state at any time. if turkey became some sharia state again it would be kicked out of europe anyway.

Correct, and bush says what arabs tell him to say.

Words and deeds. And he does what zionist neo cons tell him too, hence no more road map efforts for the last few years.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Flippant

"Flippant"

back to school again Mr Eye. europe doesnt want turkey, turkey wants europe. we just want anyone thats demanding to join be like us and not liable to become a junta led state at any time. if turkey became some sharia state again it would be kicked out of europe anyway.

Sure, turkey applied, it is a grand opportunity to cut your throat, however,
Accession Of Turkey To The European Union (link)

Public opinion in EU countries generally opposes Turkish membership, though with varying degrees of intensity, although political leaders and politicians of the European Union generally support it.

Turkish Armed Forces (link)

European Union officials state that the addition of the Turkish Armed Forces into the EU Military Framework will enable it (the EU) to be a true global player and super power[6].:doh

Once the door is opened, nothing will stop the final assault of arabism fanatics and general populous muzzled and collared under the sectarian mandates of the turkish military, it cannot be undone.

Accession of Turkey to the European Union

Population
Statistics show that the birth rate is declining in the entire continent of Europe. Especially in Eastern Europe and Russia population growth is in minus stage. The EU member states already set a goal to solve the impact of the aging population.[30] Turkey has a young population. This might act as a balance for the increasingly aging populations of the current EU.[31]:doh

Turkey, with 99% of the population nominally Muslim, would be the first Muslim-majority country to join the European Union,....
....
Upon joining the EU, Turkey's almost 70 million inhabitants would bestow it the second largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament.[10] In addition, Turkey's admission would add up to 10 billion Euros a year to the EU by 2020.[52] Demographic projections indicate Turkey would surpass Germany in the number of seats by 2020.[10]

Words and deeds. And he does what zionist neo cons tell him too, hence no more road map efforts for the last few years.

C'est la vie

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Inn Difference

"Inn Difference"
The fact is, there is no distinction between arabism and sharia law.
Thus, anyone of reason would say that advocates of arabism ignorantly think too highly of their simpleton concept paired with tripe, meaning they are full of crap up to the cultural supremacist ears.

ooooh youy dont like arabists or islamics, what a great intellectual leap!

Right now, the isrealis could deport them to saudia arabia, it makes me no nevermind, arbism is that sickening.

what method do youm recommend? cattle trucks or just trucks?

What a pethetic ad-hominem, you do not appear to have a philosophy background.

and you not appear to have one argument above 'arabism is bad'.

Libertarianism is a philosophy, try looking it up.

alreay have.

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Flippant

"Flippant"
Sure, turkey applied, it is a grand opportunity to cut your throat, however,
Accession Of Turkey To The European Union (link)

luckily we dont like those who are liable to have juntas or islamic govs in our club.

C'est la vie

exactly. what will be will be and all truth is relative so why do you bother?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Distemper Shots

"Distemper Shots"

ooooh youy dont like arabists or islamics, what a great intellectual leap!
and you not appear to have one argument above 'arabism is bad'.

Arabism as a religion cannot be separated from sharia law.
Arabism is socially, terminally, antilibertarian.
Arabism is not for non-arabs.
Arabism has a purpose as a genetic religion for arabs, as a system of tradition, culture and government in genetic arabia proper.
That is part of what has been said.
"Bad" is contingent upon when and where.

what method do you recommend? cattle trucks or just trucks?

That is not my recommendation.
It was a statement of indifference based on a pretense that israel has the right to assure its solvency against arabism dissension.
Saudi arabia has my equally related concurrence.

luckily we dont like those who are liable to have juntas or islamic govs in our club.

Without the turkish military (pseudo junta) turkey would already be an islamic government.
But you don't have a choice, the nitwit politicians are going to corn hole you into it.

C'est la vie

exactly. what will be will be and all truth is relative so why do you bother?

The truth is relative to one's own perceptions, you somehow keep missing that.
Articles are related, and events have outcomes and truth values based on how the relationship betwen them is defined.
An absolute truth means the articles are always causally related.

Perhaps an outcome may be related to a person's expectations.
If one person finds the outcome unsatisfactory, and another finds the outcome satisfactory, the truth is related to the perception of each.
Truth relative means that truth cannot be absolutely determined from the outcome.
It does not mean the outcomes are insignificant to perception.

alreay have.

Well, that's nice.
What have you learned?

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Distemper Shots

"Distemper Shots"
Arabism as a religion cannot be separated from sharia law.
Arabism is socially, terminally, antilibertarian.
Arabism is not for non-arabs.
Arabism has a purpose as a genetic religion for arabs, as a system of tradition, culture and government in genetic arabia proper.
That is part of what has been said.
"Bad" is contingent upon when and where.

and?

That is not my recommendation.
It was a statement of indifference based on a pretense that israel has the right to assure its solvency against arabism dissension.

do the arabs of the west bank have a right to assure their solvency against Jewish dissension?

Without the turkish military (pseudo junta) turkey would already be an islamic government.
But you don't have a choice, the nitwit politicians are going to corn hole you into it.

Quite. thats doesnt mean were letting them in though. the eu isnt for juntas to enjoy, however noble their aims.

The truth is relative to one's own perceptions, you somehow keep missing that.

im not missing it. I disagree. just cos its hard to find doesnt mean its not there.

Well, that's nice.
What have you learned?

that you often seek to sway the conversation on to areas you're more familiar with despite the actual subjects of the threads, due to your lack of detailed knowledge and unwillingness to move on from your pronouncments about arabism.

 

[Monk-Eye]

War Of Idea Intimidation

"War Of Idea Intimidation"

and?
do the arabs of the west bank have a right to assure their solvency against Jewish dissension?

You might want to be careful as one of my previous inquiries is, "When are arabs going to end their occupation of non-arab lands?"
Your angst for a moratorium on options to the human condition are met with mockery, and possibly worse.

Quite. thats doesnt mean were letting them in though. the eu isnt for juntas to enjoy, however noble their aims.

Perhaps look up a new term - federalism (link), you will find a distinction between the ill conceived collectivism of europe and the individualism of the US.

The founder of modern turkey and its military understood the antilibertarian propensities of arabism, and instituted critical elements to assure a secular foundation of government.
Europeons require the turkish military to stand down before admission to their union, but europe has no idea how to deal with 99% arabism population, europe can barely handle the 10% they have.

Arabism immigrants need to accept that arabism is not universal, that arabism is a genetic religion as a culture and tradition under government for arabs in the land of genetic arabia proper.
Europeans need to emphasize that arabism is not for non-arabs and its jurisdiction as a city state is not to exist within their borders - see the millet system.
Europeans require validity and means to insulate themselves from the "opiate of the masses" deception imploring them to convert.

that you often seek to sway the conversation on to areas you're more familiar with despite the actual subjects of the threads, due to your lack of detailed knowledge and unwillingness to move on from your pronouncments about arabism.

These perspectives are not the limit of my contributions.
My position here inspires dissonance within non-arabs, a veil is lifted from their illusions, and they are given an opportunity to walk away from their entrapments.

More than a few of my inputs in other venues have been unique, insightful, and formidable.
New posters swing into the mix seeking reflection, most with poisoned preconceptions from limited exposure, they will be dealt a hand from my deck as it applies.

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: War Of Idea Intimidation

"War Of Idea Intimidation"
You might want to be careful as one of my previous inquiries is, "When are arabs going to end their occupation of non-arab lands?"
Your angst for a moratorium on options to the human condition are met with mockery, and possibly worse.

Is that a no? they have no right?

Perhaps look up a new term - federalism (link), you will find a distinction between the ill conceived collectivism of europe and the individualism of the US.

Please, lets not get into a US vs EU fight. We're doing fine, Id rather be here than there anytime.

Europeons require the turkish military to stand down before admission to their union, but europe has no idea how to deal with 99% arabism population, europe can barely handle the 10% they have.

Doesnt mean we're allowing juntas in either. Tough world needs tough decisions.

Arabism immigrants need to accept that arabism is not universal, that arabism is a genetic religion as a culture and tradition under government for arabs in the land of genetic arabia proper.

they may accept 'arabism is not universal, that arabism is a genetic religion as a culture and tradition' but they wont accept 'for arabs in the land of genetic arabia proper'.

Europeans need to emphasize that arabism is not for non-arabs

We're not interested in stopping conversions or telling people where they can practice islam. and if we tried telling Iranians that they should give up islam i doubt theyd listen.

Europeans require validity and means to insulate themselves from the "opiate of the masses" deception imploring them to convert.

No we dont.

These perspectives are not the limit of my contributions.

From the evidence so far, they are.

My position here inspires dissonance within non-arabs, a veil is lifted from their illusions, and they are given an opportunity to walk away from their entrapments.

No veils are being lifted, anywhere.

More than a few of my inputs in other venues have been unique, insightful, and formidable.

I doubt it. Most of it is probably blah blah blah. However to examine if thats true or not I see there's a thread here for formal debates, ever won one of these? Think you could?

New posters swing into the mix seeking reflection, most with poisoned preconceptions from limited exposure, they will be dealt a hand from my deck as it applies.

I dont seek reflection, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Trivial Pursuit

"Trivial Pursuit"

Is that a no? they have no right?

There are no inalienable rights.

Doesnt mean we're allowing juntas in either. Tough world needs tough decisions.

Then shut the door on turkey, and stop compromising the responsibility of their military!!!
There were tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets of turkey in opposition to lifting the headscarf ban.
Joining the EU is an infiltrative ruse; are europeans that imbicilic?

they may accept 'arabism is not universal, that arabism is a genetic religion as a culture and tradition' but they wont accept 'for arabs in the land of genetic arabia proper'.

It should be ensured that that is their only choice.

No we dont....We're not interested in stopping conversions or telling people where they can practice islam. and if we tried telling Iranians that they should give up islam i doubt theyd listen.

And thousands of children drown in pools every year, so limiting the opportunity for danger is prudent.
Iranians will listen, they are wanton for a justification that over time will assuredly disintegrate the mullahs.

From the evidence so far, they are.
...I doubt it. Most of it is probably blah blah blah. However to examine if thats true or not I see there's a thread here for formal debates, ever won one of these? Think you could?

This is my focus as of late.
You have been here less than a month and do not seem to venture much further than the middle east forum, so, try not to get ahead of yourself,.

I dont seek reflection, quite the opposite in fact.

:roll:

 

[Dougie_Vipond]

Re: Trivial Pursuit

"Trivial Pursuit"
There are no inalienable rights.

your own words;
It was a statement of indifference based on a pretense that israel has the right to assure its solvency against arabism dissension.

Then shut the door on turkey, and stop compromising the responsibility of their military!!!

thanks, we are! its they that wish to join us!

There were tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets of turkey in opposition to lifting the headscarf ban.

Good for them.

Joining the EU is an infiltrative ruse; are europeans that imbicilic?

we do fine thanks

It should be ensured that that is their only choice.

we're not nazis and the UK is not going to start another war to move arabs all muslims to arabia.

And thousands of children drown in pools every year, so limiting the opportunity for danger is prudent.

doesnt mean we're banning swimming pools

Iranians will listen, they are wanton for a justification that over time will assuredly disintegrate the mullahs.

doubt it. no evidence offered anyway.

This is my focus as of late.
You have been here less than a month and do not seem to venture much further than the middle east forum, so, try not to get ahead of yourself,.

im ahead of you not myself and ive been busy reading

:roll:

im here to work out the truth of things and test my arguments, its fun. not to find agreements with like minded souls. although common here thats cowardly and boring. though tyou might agree with that, but since all you can do is spout bull at people so much that even yuor own side wont respond, maybe not.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Sanction

"Sanction"

your own words;
It was a statement of indifference based on a pretense that israel has the right to assure its solvency against arabism dissension.

What is your point? Rights are not inalienable, right exists within an institution which has the strength to guarantee them as options under law.

doesnt mean we're banning swimming pools

You do not seem to swim well in the sea of simile or metaphor.

Good for them.
thanks, we are! its they that wish to join us!
we're not nazis and the UK is not going to start another war to move arabs all muslims to arabia....doubt it. no evidence offered anyway.

Your politicians entertain, even entreat the idea, enticing the opportunity, and requiring degenerate demands.
Please, simply hold the line and try not fathom any more than capable reason.
No expansionism is necessary, let the local populations manage that rebellion.

im ahead of you not myself and ive been busy reading...im here to work out the truth of things and test my arguments, its fun. not to find agreements with like minded souls. although common here thats cowardly and boring. though tyou might agree with that, but since all you can do is spout bull at people so much that even yuor own side wont respond, maybe not.

Pride is trivial.
My side won't respond?
Why should they? There is little about my principles, on this issue, about which they might disagree.

You are debating others who engage the constructs of society.
That is not my playground.

And if you search evangelical perceptions, eventhough I am not an evangelical and, they hang out elsewhere, you will see that they adhere to israel being for israelism.

In silent advocacy, our expectations are consistent in outcome.