danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes, I started a thread on that. Although the title isn't specific. I called it "Stupid, Stupid Fuckers", which was all I could think of at the time.
Israel warns of Gaza 'holocaust'
- Thread starter wreckhead
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Not by people who have taken the trouble to find out, but the point is many people get their facts from sources who are not providing a context beyond a few days ago.
mauvais
on reddit or something
I got that wrong, but it's still not exactly great: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/ne...351100/5351140.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
03:40 said:
05:00 said:
mauvais
on reddit or something
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Dexter just likes to disagree with me.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I have no idea what you're on about. And I suspect neither do you, so you'll excuse me if I don't bother myself too much with your dribblings.I think that they fact they don't mention Palestine in the entire article says more than I can.
What's your beef with the GMG, and that bit of work? Is David Miller the wrong flavour of Trot for you? Or is it just that nobody has told you what to think about it yet?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Let's try this, then, Dexter: have you read the article? Do you understand it? Would you agree that it shows "how news can confuse"? That some pretty serious shortcomings in coverage were described? That this did not facilitate good viewer understanding?
This is the kind of point I was making, and the reason I referred to the work. My specific point about no context being given by the BBC for the phrase occupied territory is covered in point 2. (The book carries more detail, but the online excerpt does justice to the argument). Do you agree, Dexter, that this is the danger of the way the BBC present the issues, and that these misunderstandings are a result of a serious failing in reporting?
This is the kind of point I was making, and the reason I referred to the work. My specific point about no context being given by the BBC for the phrase occupied territory is covered in point 2. (The book carries more detail, but the online excerpt does justice to the argument). Do you agree, Dexter, that this is the danger of the way the BBC present the issues, and that these misunderstandings are a result of a serious failing in reporting?
Garfield: First, the last thing I will eve do here is sit and engage you or anybody else on their perception of my personality's imagined flaws
As for the subject..."How can Arabs occupy what was theirs in the first place.": The problem with this idea is that when the first Arab stepped onto the historical flaw we had been living there for a good 1000 years.
Furthermore, no Arab has EVER had a nation thee. It HAS been ruled by Arabs as a far flung and neglected (save Khalifa Omar) province of the Khalif. To take it a bit further, "Palestinians" as a people did not even exist until 1948! Talk of occupation? Again, please read your history and do so devoid of propaganda.
Soloqi:" Mossad could do the job.": MOSSAD could never do the job because its mandate is as a foriegn Intel apparattus. The Intel organisation that could carry such a mandate is Shin Bet but that is not the point (neither could they ever be employed in such a capacity).
The point is that these are not a form of "Collective Punishment," rather an attempt to deal with this incesssant and very real problem short of infiltration.
"Right to self determination...": Indeed, this was the concept behind the 2005 Withdrawal from Gaza. They wanted statehood? Begin the process. The problem lies in Gaza, not in Israel.
Israel contains no manifesto on annihilating Arabs, but we cannot say that of the HAMAS Charter, can we?
Spion:" al Majdal and wire ghettos...": Yes, we fenced our borders as most nations so and that concentration happened to sit in a crucial military point. The fencing though, to my recollection that was courtesy of the UN but I would have to double check that before signing off on it. Point though, why is it that you ALWAYS find such fault with Israel and NEVEVER with the "Palestinians?"
As for the subject..."How can Arabs occupy what was theirs in the first place.": The problem with this idea is that when the first Arab stepped onto the historical flaw we had been living there for a good 1000 years.
Furthermore, no Arab has EVER had a nation thee. It HAS been ruled by Arabs as a far flung and neglected (save Khalifa Omar) province of the Khalif. To take it a bit further, "Palestinians" as a people did not even exist until 1948! Talk of occupation? Again, please read your history and do so devoid of propaganda.
Soloqi:" Mossad could do the job.": MOSSAD could never do the job because its mandate is as a foriegn Intel apparattus. The Intel organisation that could carry such a mandate is Shin Bet but that is not the point (neither could they ever be employed in such a capacity).
The point is that these are not a form of "Collective Punishment," rather an attempt to deal with this incesssant and very real problem short of infiltration.
"Right to self determination...": Indeed, this was the concept behind the 2005 Withdrawal from Gaza. They wanted statehood? Begin the process. The problem lies in Gaza, not in Israel.
Israel contains no manifesto on annihilating Arabs, but we cannot say that of the HAMAS Charter, can we?
Spion:" al Majdal and wire ghettos...": Yes, we fenced our borders as most nations so and that concentration happened to sit in a crucial military point. The fencing though, to my recollection that was courtesy of the UN but I would have to double check that before signing off on it. Point though, why is it that you ALWAYS find such fault with Israel and NEVEVER with the "Palestinians?"
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You're lying, the Hamas charter says nothing about 'annihilating' Jews.
Tangent: "Israel is occupying land demarcated for a "Palestinian" state. Fine, EXCEPT Israel offered all that and more with the Ross Plan and it was spit upon. More recently Israel ceded all of Gaza and one in the "WB," with the rest to follow in increments (minus the 5 to 7% that would have been exchanged hectare per hectare).
What happened? As the IDF ushered the very last convoy of "Settlers" out of Gaza it also foiled a so called "Suicide Plot" aimed at those departing Israeli-Jews! You can only sell that "Oppressed People" nonsense so far (not you specifically.
"Returning Jews were given Arab homes and never told of the fact that actual Arabs lived there prior to their arrival.": Riiiiiight. Those Jews just imagined a 200 year old home had been standing vacant just for them. No offence, and I know full well about the 4 or 5 alleged Israeli-Jews who claim this, Jews are not one of the dullest groups. Almost all knew both the history and the dynamic, if not upon arrival then in Ulpan and so forth.
"IF a family lives in a habitacion for even one generation, they cannot be called "Occupiers.": OK, let us agree then...NO ISRAELI OCCUPIES ANYTHING since our natio is almost 60. Good, glad we can pass that one along.
Facts are though, if 2 parties have conflicting land claims, both with bonafide proof of habitacion, how is the case decided (all things being equal)? In most places I have studied, and I have studied the issue (understatement) it is decided by prior habitacion.
Israel sits atop the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (not all of those lands, but the majority). Always fighting invasion, both physically and culturally, Jews made a go of it until Rome. Rome caused a good many Jews to flee to the Diasporah. They did not go because of better pay (as was the reason most Arabs entered Gaza, "WB," and Israel)...They actually left for many of the same reasons the Arabs of 1948 left...
So then, a good majority of the land lay open, and the land was ancestrally theirs, why should the Jews have not made a go of it, without even mentioning the UN Mandate?
Emminent Domain anyone?
What happened? As the IDF ushered the very last convoy of "Settlers" out of Gaza it also foiled a so called "Suicide Plot" aimed at those departing Israeli-Jews! You can only sell that "Oppressed People" nonsense so far (not you specifically.
"Returning Jews were given Arab homes and never told of the fact that actual Arabs lived there prior to their arrival.": Riiiiiight. Those Jews just imagined a 200 year old home had been standing vacant just for them. No offence, and I know full well about the 4 or 5 alleged Israeli-Jews who claim this, Jews are not one of the dullest groups. Almost all knew both the history and the dynamic, if not upon arrival then in Ulpan and so forth.
"IF a family lives in a habitacion for even one generation, they cannot be called "Occupiers.": OK, let us agree then...NO ISRAELI OCCUPIES ANYTHING since our natio is almost 60. Good, glad we can pass that one along.
Facts are though, if 2 parties have conflicting land claims, both with bonafide proof of habitacion, how is the case decided (all things being equal)? In most places I have studied, and I have studied the issue (understatement) it is decided by prior habitacion.
Israel sits atop the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (not all of those lands, but the majority). Always fighting invasion, both physically and culturally, Jews made a go of it until Rome. Rome caused a good many Jews to flee to the Diasporah. They did not go because of better pay (as was the reason most Arabs entered Gaza, "WB," and Israel)...They actually left for many of the same reasons the Arabs of 1948 left...
So then, a good majority of the land lay open, and the land was ancestrally theirs, why should the Jews have not made a go of it, without even mentioning the UN Mandate?
Emminent Domain anyone?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Proof please? Like that's going to happen. 
Tangent: "Cannot believe 1/2 the 'Palestinians' ere celbrating the murder of 8 Jewish schoolkids in Israel.": Believe it...You should have seen it after 9,11.
Nino: There actually 7 separate Articles devoted to it...aside from blaming Jews for all alcoholism, addiction, war, media and financial control, and so on. It pronounces the "Protocols" as real...But , the point you disagree with, they focus on extermination. Read it perhaps?
Nino: There actually 7 separate Articles devoted to it...aside from blaming Jews for all alcoholism, addiction, war, media and financial control, and so on. It pronounces the "Protocols" as real...But , the point you disagree with, they focus on extermination. Read it perhaps?
Nino: As long as you focus on the subject, and not me, I will reply to you. Proof of what? That Eminent Domain exists? That Jews learned something in Ulpan? What?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Ah, if you aren't lying, you're using this trick. Pathetic.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
The serious problem that I have with the charter is in its citing of the Protocols. Apart from that, there is no mention of "annihilating Jews".
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Nino: Try and get hold of one of the dozens of university translated versions since you do not read Arabic. I will point you in the right direction though....
Article 11 tells us of the theological concept of waqf. Waqf dictates that any land once having been under Islamic domination is then eternally an Islamic ;and. ergo, HAMAS can NEVER coexist with Israel. This is but a gentle rendering of the premise of anihilation, and one dealing in entities other than the Jewish People. None the less it shows the groups intent.
Article 13 tells us that any kind of peace conference or even a discussion there of is anathema to their cause. Again, but a gentle rendering.It tells us that any such peace iniative is but a ploy of Jews AND CHRISTIANS designed to convert Muslims.
Then it tells us that the ONLY solution is jihad. Jihad, for non-Arabic speakers can mean more than one thing. The actual literal definition is struggle but in this context it is taken to mean violent struggle since, as the preceeding 2 paragraphs tell us, peace should be shunned unless Muslims are given full dominion over the land.
I should also add that Article 15 repeats this more precisely.
Article 20 tells us that Jews are Nazis, something by the way which is repeated over and over in their leaflets.
Article 22 tells us of the claims I stated in my previous post where Jews are blamed for the Holocaust, every war since the French Revolution, use the Lions, Rotary Clubs and similar organisations as tools to take over the world.
It also repeats what I stated about control of the world media and banking system,etc., etc.
Article 28 repeats what I stated in my previous post about Jews being responsible for ALL addictions, as well as the claims made in the 22nd Article.
Article 32 does , as you say repeat the claim about the Protocols.
Funny though Nino, that is the very same Article that refers to Sura 5...You claim to not have seen anything about annihilation? I do suggest you get a copy of the Charter from other than Arab sources.
You must have also missed the al Bukhari nonsense, and I quote, The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; Until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry Hark Believer! There are Jews in hiding, behind me, come and kill them!
This is what guides their ideology.
Article 11 tells us of the theological concept of waqf. Waqf dictates that any land once having been under Islamic domination is then eternally an Islamic ;and. ergo, HAMAS can NEVER coexist with Israel. This is but a gentle rendering of the premise of anihilation, and one dealing in entities other than the Jewish People. None the less it shows the groups intent.
Article 13 tells us that any kind of peace conference or even a discussion there of is anathema to their cause. Again, but a gentle rendering.It tells us that any such peace iniative is but a ploy of Jews AND CHRISTIANS designed to convert Muslims.
Then it tells us that the ONLY solution is jihad. Jihad, for non-Arabic speakers can mean more than one thing. The actual literal definition is struggle but in this context it is taken to mean violent struggle since, as the preceeding 2 paragraphs tell us, peace should be shunned unless Muslims are given full dominion over the land.
I should also add that Article 15 repeats this more precisely.
Article 20 tells us that Jews are Nazis, something by the way which is repeated over and over in their leaflets.
Article 22 tells us of the claims I stated in my previous post where Jews are blamed for the Holocaust, every war since the French Revolution, use the Lions, Rotary Clubs and similar organisations as tools to take over the world.
It also repeats what I stated about control of the world media and banking system,etc., etc.
Article 28 repeats what I stated in my previous post about Jews being responsible for ALL addictions, as well as the claims made in the 22nd Article.
Article 32 does , as you say repeat the claim about the Protocols.
Funny though Nino, that is the very same Article that refers to Sura 5...You claim to not have seen anything about annihilation? I do suggest you get a copy of the Charter from other than Arab sources.
You must have also missed the al Bukhari nonsense, and I quote, The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; Until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry Hark Believer! There are Jews in hiding, behind me, come and kill them!
This is what guides their ideology.
Garfield: I do not engage people who lack civility. I do not see this forum as an outlet for cyber aggression. I do not hide behind silly screen names and throw barbed comments. I see it as a place to exchange ideas and thoughts and if you or anyone else cannot grasp this very simple concept, good luck.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
still not an answer. come back when you can provide one. tadah!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Care to cite your source? This isn't the same document that I read....and it doesn't have to be in Arabic either. Those opiates are fucking up your head, bubba. So where does it talk of the "annihilation" of Jews? Hmmm?
So I've read it at last. Shit, isn't it? Looks like what happens when you get a bunch of teenage boys sat around talking all night with only tea and tobacco to divert them...
But on a non-paranoid reading, the worst threat it proffers to a Jewish Israeli citizen - via the concept of waqf - is that they would have to pay taxes.
It's as though some people have not realised that the saying "oy, these taxes will kill me" is merely figurative
But on a non-paranoid reading, the worst threat it proffers to a Jewish Israeli citizen - via the concept of waqf - is that they would have to pay taxes.
It's as though some people have not realised that the saying "oy, these taxes will kill me" is merely figurative
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
So I've read it at last. Shit, isn't it? Looks like what happens when you get a bunch of teenage boys sat around talking all night with only tea and tobacco to divert them...
But on a non-paranoid reading, the worst threat it proffers to a Jewish Israeli citizen - via the concept of waqf - is that they would have to pay taxes.
It's as though some people have not realised that the saying "oy, these taxes will kill me" is merely figurative
They're also got a bit of an obsession with Freemasons and Rotary Clubs...weird.
I think that's an allegorical discussion of the role of aid organisations. I imagine that some half-schooled paranoid may even have seen a Rotary logo in Gaza - and forced their comrades to endure a couple of all-night arguments by oil-light on whether all aid organisations were therefore Crusader fronts. Clearly, anyway, Hamas had its own Jazzzz and they were listened to
Nino: "Cite Rachamim's source.": I read it in the original but you can find a good almost verbatim one, in English, at the Avalon Project, as well as literally hundreds of others.
"Where does it talk of annihilation?": Read the referenced English translation. Arab websites tend to want to clean it up but Mesha'al said just 3 months ago that they will never change their unabridged Charter.
Laptop: "Waqf means they would have to pay higher taxes.": First, you are confused. You are talking about the concept of the "Dhimmi." That is the system of higher taxation, as well as social and civil restriction for Infidels (which by the way DOES include "People of the Book").
"Waqf" is the concept where a land once ruled, even for a second, by a Muslim is forever more Islamic Land. This talks of annihilation of the Zionist State which many here would agree with, sadly.
Please read the actual book, and you will find 7 references to it.
What I find most interesting though is that aside from Nino's condemnation of the Charter's reference to the "Protocols," noone here has offered one iota of criticism about the Charter's claims that JEWS (not Israelis) caused the Holocaust, victimsed the Germans, control all world banks and media, use entities like the Lions, Jaycees, and Rotary as means to take control of the world, cause ALL alcoholism and addiction, and so on.
And then we have the reference , directly, to al Bukhari and his missive about killing all Jews and yet people here have the gall to criticise Israel and nary a mention of HAMAS. How sad, and predictable.
Again, try not reading Arab offered versions, and see what you find. Avalon is thoroughly objective and accepted academically.
"Where does it talk of annihilation?": Read the referenced English translation. Arab websites tend to want to clean it up but Mesha'al said just 3 months ago that they will never change their unabridged Charter.
Laptop: "Waqf means they would have to pay higher taxes.": First, you are confused. You are talking about the concept of the "Dhimmi." That is the system of higher taxation, as well as social and civil restriction for Infidels (which by the way DOES include "People of the Book").
"Waqf" is the concept where a land once ruled, even for a second, by a Muslim is forever more Islamic Land. This talks of annihilation of the Zionist State which many here would agree with, sadly.
Please read the actual book, and you will find 7 references to it.
What I find most interesting though is that aside from Nino's condemnation of the Charter's reference to the "Protocols," noone here has offered one iota of criticism about the Charter's claims that JEWS (not Israelis) caused the Holocaust, victimsed the Germans, control all world banks and media, use entities like the Lions, Jaycees, and Rotary as means to take control of the world, cause ALL alcoholism and addiction, and so on.
And then we have the reference , directly, to al Bukhari and his missive about killing all Jews and yet people here have the gall to criticise Israel and nary a mention of HAMAS. How sad, and predictable.
Again, try not reading Arab offered versions, and see what you find. Avalon is thoroughly objective and accepted academically.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
very intrestign rach now about those sources can you please finally post up the sources for where precisely ISM have admitted to doctering the photos of rachel correy being crushed by the bulldozer D9 please...
no more obfistaction post the evidence your sources and links or retract... we're still all waiting...
no more obfistaction post the evidence your sources and links or retract... we're still all waiting...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You mean the version that's been 'translated' by a Kahanist 'scholar'?
There is no mention of "annihilation".
And a small misquote reveals that rach doesn't reply to what posters said, he replies to something going on in his mind or on the other boards the Megaphone (giyus . org) sends him to.
You're just noise, rach. A user who makes "a stream of posts with no meaningful content".
You're just noise, rach. A user who makes "a stream of posts with no meaningful content".
Similar threads
