The Truth About Islam

[numinus]

I agree it is pointless. The problems in that area have existed since the establishment of Israel after the end of WWII despite the best intentions of those who would mediate a solution. There will be no solution until one entity (Israel or the Arabs), prevails in a war of major destruction of the other. There is no other solution. Compromises, treaties, and talks have shown to be ineffective and have led to continued conflict and quasi-war.

The 'best intentions' of mediators in the area do not extend outside what's best for their own geopolitical and economic interests. I am skeptical that iran's goal is to establish a palestinian state for their brethren in much the same way that the west's goal is to establish peace in the region.

The bottom line is this -- how far can rational people in the region and around the world flirt with military adventurism until the inescapable fact of MUTUAL DESTRUCTION becomes palpably obvious?

And I'm not even considering the inclinations of goat-herders from hamas and hezbollah in this. Only a warped mind could possibly appreciate any of the rhetorics from their warped logic. There is no question that they need to be eradicated from the face of this earth COMPLETELY. This is a minor problem once the real players start to decide which way they wish to go.

 

[dahermit]

And I'm not even considering the inclinations of goat-herders from hamas and hezbollah in this. Only a warped mind could possibly appreciate any of the rhetorics from their warped logic. There is no question that they need to be eradicated from the face of this earth COMPLETELY. This is a minor problem once the real players start to decide which way they wish to go.

The problem with "eradicating from the face of the earth", is that the truly guilty are interspersed with the truly innocent. (In WWII the Japanese military were/had abused civilians and prisoners of war. However, in justifying dropping the bomb on Japan, no consideration was given to the majority of the bomb victims as being unaware and not responsible for the atrocities committed by their military.) It is similar in the middle east problem, not all/most of the people likely to be killed because of their "warped logic" are not the offending hamas or hezbollah. In the past, we just killed everybody and "let God sort them out." Can we just ignore this dilemma now?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The problem with "eradicating from the face of the earth", is that the truly guilty are interspersed with the truly innocent. (In WWII the Japanese military were/had abused civilians and prisoners of war. However, in justifying dropping the bomb on Japan, no consideration was given to the majority of the bomb victims as being unaware and not responsible for the atrocities committed by their military.) It is similar in the middle east problem, not all/most of the people likely to be killed because of their "warped logic" are not the offending hamas or hezbollah. In the past, we just killed everybody and "let God sort them out." Can we just ignore this dilemma now?

Picky, picky, genocide recognizes no innocents.

Nice to see you again, Nums, the parole came through finally, eh? Nice too to see you advocating genocide, that last stretch of porridge didn't make a dent in you, did it?

 

[numinus]

The problem with "eradicating from the face of the earth", is that the truly guilty are interspersed with the truly innocent. (In WWII the Japanese military were/had abused civilians and prisoners of war. However, in justifying dropping the bomb on Japan, no consideration was given to the majority of the bomb victims as being unaware and not responsible for the atrocities committed by their military.) It is similar in the middle east problem, not all/most of the people likely to be killed because of their "warped logic" are not the offending hamas or hezbollah. In the past, we just killed everybody and "let God sort them out." Can we just ignore this dilemma now?

I'm sorry but I was talking about eradicating goat-herder logic and not necessarily the goad-herder. Goat-herder logic thrives on certain socio-political conditions. It thirves simply because some people profit from perpetuating these conditions. That is petty adventurism.

Take syria's recent fracas with israel for instance. They run to the international community accusing israel of military aggression when their government cannot even control hezbollah operating within their borders. If that is the case, then the world would be better off forcibly controlling that area in syria near the border, no?

Same goes to the palestinian authority. A political group like hamas shouldn't be allowed to participate in peaceful electoral processes if they do not divest themselves of their military arm. An armed political group campaigning for your vote is certainly odd, don't you think?

 

[numinus]

Picky, picky, genocide recognizes no innocents.

Nice to see you again, Nums, the parole came through finally, eh? Nice too to see you advocating genocide, that last stretch of porridge didn't make a dent in you, did it?

Parole? I had no idea I was under some kind of punishment. I sat back for a while wondering how the general membership would react to drastically lowering the average iq of the community all by your own lonesome -- without me offsetting it.

Apparently, it wasn't a pretty sight.

Oh, and I'm not advocating genocide. But then again, there really is no reason not to twist my ideas, now, is there, seeing that you have twisted everything else beyond recognition.

Duh?

 

[dahermit]

Take syria's recent fracas with israel for instance. They run to the international community accusing israel of military aggression when their government cannot even control hezbollah operating within their borders. If that is the case, then the world would be better off forcibly controlling that area in syria near the border, no?

The problem here is that there is no "world" authority. The U.N. has shown to be ineffective. NATO has no legal authority in the matter (I do not think that Isreal is a NATO member, but could be wrong).

Same goes to the palestinian authority. A political group like hamas shouldn't be allowed to participate in peaceful electoral processes if they do not divest themselves of their military arm. An armed political group campaigning for your vote is certainly odd, don't you think?

Yes, I agree. Nevertheless, Israel is not totally blameless. They have policies and practices that result in mal-treatment of Arab people that are native to Israel and thus, fuel the emotions that result in Hamas gaining power.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Parole? I had no idea I was under some kind of punishment. I sat back for a while wondering how the general membership would react to drastically lowering the average iq of the community all by your own lonesome -- without me offsetting it.

Apparently, it wasn't a pretty sight.

Oh, and I'm not advocating genocide. But then again, there really is no reason not to twist my ideas, now, is there, seeing that you have twisted everything else beyond recognition.

Duh?

You add a sense of stability to the Universe, Nums, since your sense of humor didn't improve and your arrogance is just as overweening.

 

[numinus]

The problem here is that there is no "world" authority. The U.N. has shown to be ineffective. NATO has no legal authority in the matter (I do not think that Isreal is a NATO member, but could be wrong).

I'm sorry. I meant the world would be better off if israel forcibly controlled that area. It is, after all, a matter of their own security.

Syria has no business claiming military occupation of their territory by a foreign power for two very simple reasons:

1. They cannot exercise sovereign power within that territory since they cannot control lawless elements in it;

2. And since they cannot exercise sovereign power over that territory -- enough sovereign power to stop and punish lawless elments -- then that is not, in fact, their territory.

And if, for argument's sake, syria insists on claiming that it is their territory (against all evidence to the contrary), then they are guilty of unjust aggression and the israeli government within their right to defend itself.

The same argument can be made with the palestinian authority in the west bank. In fact, it is much worse, since the lawless elements themselves, are elected officials. But curiously enough, this sort of nonsense is being peddled by the same goat-herders in the international media. It really is an odd case study for the aspiring political science student.

Yes, I agree. Nevertheless, Israel is not totally blameless. They have policies and practices that result in mal-treatment of Arab people that are native to Israel and thus, fuel the emotions that result in Hamas gaining power.

How are they maltreating the arab people in their territory?

As far as I'm concerned, the israeli government is justified to use any and all means at their disposal -- even vastly superior military strength -- to restore law and order within its territory. And if that means all occupied territories is a no-fart zone, then the arabs better not fart while in these territories.

 

[numinus]

You add a sense of stability to the Universe, Nums, since your sense of humor didn't improve and your arrogance is just as overweening.

What is it that you are whinning about this time, eh?

Do you imagine that it is israel's fault that rockets are being stored in populated neighborhoods and mosques? Or perhaps you fancy it is genocide to go after these rockets?

Here is the meaning of the word, in case you are too incompetent to know it:

gen·o·cide   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Wrap your mind around that and tell me who is guilty of attempting genocide -- hamas, hezbollah et. al. or the idf?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What is it that you are whinning about this time, eh?

Do you imagine that it is israel's fault that rockets are being stored in populated neighborhoods and mosques? Or perhaps you fancy it is genocide to go after these rockets?

Here is the meaning of the word, in case you are too incompetent to know it:

gen·o·cide   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Wrap your mind around that and tell me who is guilty of attempting genocide -- hamas, hezbollah et. al. or the idf?

I was just noting that you neither your ego nor your sense of humor had improved any during your stretch in gaol.

 

[dahermit]

I'm sorry. I meant the world would be better off if israel forcibly controlled that area. It is, after all, a matter of their own security.

Syria has no business claiming military occupation of their territory by a foreign power for two very simple reasons:

1. They cannot exercise sovereign power within that territory since they cannot control lawless elements in it;

2. And since they cannot exercise sovereign power over that territory -- enough sovereign power to stop and punish lawless elments -- then that is not, in fact, their territory.

And if, for argument's sake, syria insists on claiming that it is their territory (against all evidence to the contrary), then they are guilty of unjust aggression and the israeli government within their right to defend itself.

The same argument can be made with the palestinian authority in the west bank. In fact, it is much worse, since the lawless elements themselves, are elected officials. But curiously enough, this sort of nonsense is being peddled by the same goat-herders in the international media. It really is an odd case study for the aspiring political science student.

Then we can apply the same logic to the Mexican land adjacent to the American border. As of late, Mexico has shown that it cannot control the lawless acts in that area. Americans are frequent victims. Therefore, the U.S. should invade and take over those Mexican areas...for our own safety.

How are they maltreating the arab people in their territory?

As far as I'm concerned, the israeli government is justified to use any and all means at their disposal -- even vastly superior military strength -- to restore law and order within its territory. And if that means all occupied territories is a no-fart zone, then the arabs better not fart while in these territories.

I have seen documentaries where there were peaceful Arabs with titles to houses, land that were displaced without compensation. In the documentary, the elderly Arab took the camera team back to the house for which he held title, and showed where he used to live. Also, "settlements" being built are being built upon land that is owned by displaced Arabs. Also, there is blatant, well documented discrimination against Arabs within the Israeli borders despite the insistence from the very founding of the Israel that, Arabs would be welcomed as citizens.

 

[numinus]

Then we can apply the same logic to the Mexican land adjacent to the American border. As of late, Mexico has shown that it cannot control the lawless acts in that area. Americans are frequent victims. Therefore, the U.S. should invade and take over those Mexican areas...for our own safety.

Sure you can. If you can prove that lawless elements in mexico are causing american deaths from that territory.

I think clancy gave an entirely valid, albeit hypothetical premise in one of his books, no?

I have seen documentaries where there were peaceful Arabs with titles to houses, land that were displaced without compensation. In the documentary, the elderly Arab took the camera team back to the house for which he held title, and showed where he used to live. Also, "settlements" being built are being built upon land that is owned by displaced Arabs. Also, there is blatant, well documented discrimination against Arabs within the Israeli borders despite the insistence from the very founding of the Israel that, Arabs would be welcomed as citizens.

The torrens system of title is itself based on the regallian doctrine. If, for instance, that a positive title was issued during the british mandate of palestine, then it derives its validity from that authority.

Obviously, that is no longer the case today, no?

But then again, it is entirely possible for such a claim to persist even during a change of government. The essential element here is an UNINTERRUPTED AND ADVERSE POSSESSION of the land in question. So, if you rejected citizenship in the fledgeling nation and left your land, what claim is there that you can make before that nation's government? I'd imagine none, whatsoever.

 

[numinus]

I was just noting that you neither your ego nor your sense of humor had improved any during your stretch in gaol.

Of course you have nothing worthwhile to say -- except how you missed my indespensible instructions.

You old fart, you.

 

[dahermit]

Sure you can. If you can prove that lawless elements in Mexico are causing American deaths from that territory.

That would not likely be difficult to do just with the traffic of drugs though the tunnels they have found so far.

I think clancy gave an entirely valid, albeit hypothetical premise in one of his books, no?

I would not know, other than Clancy's writings are fiction.

if you rejected citizenship in the fledgeling nation and left your land, what claim is there that you can make before that nation's government? I'd imagine none, whatsoever.

The documentary did not state that the displaced Arabs rejected citizenship. Nevertheless, is it not common for someone in one country to own land in another? Many Americans own property in other countries. As for the settlements on the West Bank, who is giving title to that land to the settlers? And, how have the former owners rejecting citizenship and leaving their land?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course you have nothing worthwhile to say -- except how you missed my indespensible instructions.

You old fart, you.

Is this what passes (no pun intended) for your wisdumb? Simpleminded name calling?