In the 1970-early 1980s, the Israeli's had something called the "broken arm" policy.  If they saw a child throwing rocks, it was military policy to break their arms.  In fact, a leading dissident's house was broken into in the middle of the night and made to watch while his five year old daughters arms were broken in front of him.

I'm not pro-Palestinian either, but I'm just saying... where there's smoke, there's suicide bombers... and where there's suicide bombers, there's something that they feel strongly enough about to die for.

whosasailorthen wrote:

Hell, they've been at this for over 2,000 years . . .

Not exactly a history major, were you?

Regarding the article:  In the United States Of America, we call this "news."  In Palestine, they call it "Monday."

< JackOffSmirnoff > In Israeli occupied Gaza, bullet liberates you. < /JackOffSmirnoff >

But except for the minority Sephardic, all the Jewish residents of occupied Palestine are of distinctly Eastern/European Stock, children of conversion, and not direct lineal descent from the original Sephardic/Semetic Stock (which in blood and dna work are indistinguishable from the other locals, except for the Cohen marker if I remember correctly...  Therefore, we have an indigenous population resisting a foreign presence.  I suggest we offer the locals in Salt Lake City a premium price, and move the Europeans there, 'kay?


D

whosasailorthen wrote:

Decadence wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

Hell, they've been at this for over 2,000 years . . .

Not exactly a history major, were you?

Actually, fucktard, I happen to teach history, among other things.

Have I shown you this rather interesting piece of lint which I uncovered from my naval earlier this evening?

Feisty wrote:

There can be shades for your preference, but the degree to which you proscribe to either preference is really irrelevant.

Is any-body else extremely "turned on" at the moment, or is that just me?  Eh, never mind.

feisty wrote:

If you find that sexy then I've got a head full of meaningless, overly embellished speech I can lay on your drunk ass.

Supposedly, that's my job. Perhaps the history teacher can illuminate a few minor points (but anyone can play):

1. How does one dead child constitute 'genocide?'

2. How many suicide bombers have been Israeli, of any ethnic extraction?

3. Who 'owned' the territory of Palestine prior to the re-creation of a Jewish state? And prior to them? Why was Israel re-established?

4. What is the strategic purpose of Gaza and the West Bank?

5. Why do Mormons believe that Zion is actually located in the United States?

1.  One dead child does not constitute genocide.  However, the definition of Genocide is not in the numbers for any one incident... it is the deliberate, state sanctioned (or semi-national group sanctioned) attempt to eradicate a race, religion, or ethnicity.  And eradicate can also, in certain circumstances, mean to expel them.  So technically, by some international law definitions, the forced relocation or expulsion of a particular group of people BECAUSE of the aforementioned attributes can constitute genocide.

2.  I'm not sure... It's not common if anything.  But here's why:  (1)  Israel is generally recognized as a state by international bodies, Palestine is not (and even the ones that do, it's not to the same degree).  (2)  Israel has a highly organized military force, Palestine does not.  (3)  Israel has the monetary and military support of more power players in the international system (primarily, of course, the USA), Palestine has the Arabs and Persians, who are currently occupied (literally and figuratively).  (4)  Israel possesses nuclear weaponry, Palestine does not.    So effectively, Israel holds ALL the cards.  They don't need to suicide bomb the Palestinians.  They can send thermal guided bombs instead, and no one dies.  (or no one of consequence, right??)  Suicide bombing and terrorism is a tactic that is almost solely used by weak, non-state groups who are the underdogs.  They have no other options to get attention, and they also have the least to lose.  I counter your question with another question.... how many suicide bombings in Chechnya have been Russian?

3.  Ownership is a tough one.  As I've said before, I'm mainly a modern history person... but I'll take a stab based on my Sunday School classes (oh God, it's time to be afraid!!!)  The "Holy Land" has changed hands many times, and has had more of an informal boundary historically than, say, Britain.  Tribal rule was more prevalent during the times of Dude Jesus, or more of a collection of absolute monarchies with debatable boundaries.  Then of course there was the crusades.  However, in the five hundred years between the time when the Israelis left and the Zionists returned, Palestinians lived there, and if home is where your feet are, then they owned it.

4.  Strategic purpose... well, it's on the water, it provides water access for shipping and such.  I'm not so great with geography, I'm more of the theoretical type, so I'll just sorta half ass this one.

5.  Because they're insulated, inbred, child-raping retards.  You know, kinda like the Bush clan.

1.  The Zionazi Pigs have engaged in an ongoing campaign of killing, forced relocation, and destruction of economic resources based on the race of their victims.  Christian as well as Muslim Palestinians have been the targets of this campaign.  This child is one of thousands that have lost their lives because of Israel’s nazi tactics.  The only difference between Zionism and Nazism is who is defined as the master race.  Your singling out this child’s death as a unique isolated event is a semantic misdirection.


2.  Israeli’s don’t need to engage in suicide bombing.  They have tanks to crush people, missiles they can shoot from helicopters into apartment buildings or into traffic, machine guns, grenades and other weapons to kill Palestinians with.  As Feisty pointed out, suicide bombings are a tactic of stateless oppressed people without budgets for expensive weapons.


3.  What is this bullshit about “re-creation” of a Jewish state?  This is a semantic misdirection with no validity whatsoever.  The last time the area was under Jewish control was thousands of years ago.  For a long period of time before the Diaspora, the ancient Jewish inhabitants were subject to occupation by various foreign empires.  There is no direct connection between the Zionist Entity and an ancient Jewish state.  When a country is gone, it is gone for good.  Northumbria, Castile, and Prussia are gone forever, it is not possible to recreate these countries and the Zionist Entity can in no way be considered a “re-creation” of some ancient kingdom.  Any geopolitical entity claiming to be a “re-creation” of the countries I named would be engaging in propaganda.  Your claim that Israel is a “re-creation” is spurious self-serving propaganda.


4.  The Zionists would like to incorporate them into Greater Israel and will do so if they are successful in exterminating the inhabitants of these areas.


5.  Who the fuck cares why some weirdass cult teaches bullshit?  It has no relevance to the question at hand and bringing said cult into the conversation is just another misdirection tactic.

Last edited by fnord (2007-11-26 14:51:24)

MILF wrote:

Free association ramblings my ass!  I have a very specific purpose with everything I've said tonight...

I never intended to imply that you didn't.  You've apparently allowed the more popular employments of both the terms "Free-Association" and "Ramblings" to affect your interpretation of my comment.  I oft allow myself to ramble off in a bit of free-association, and have happened upon some rather interesting revelations indeed in the process
( < MarthaStewart > It's a good thing. < /MarthaStewart > ).  Had my intent been to insult, I'd most certainly have left no doubt.  I rather find your commentary quite refreshing indeed.  Considering your youth (I'm not attempting to "Out" you in any way here {You've rather a habit of doing well enough a job of that absent encouragement}; However, if I recall correctly, you are in your mid-twenties {Or, at least, there-abouts}) your voice alone damned near gives me an ever-so slight bit of hope for the youth of today.  Scotty may well lust after your flesh; But, I simply want a piece of your mind, Baby {Concerned that I've now come off a rather "twisted" individual with that last comment}.  To clarify:

Free Association ~ To continually relate that which near-instantaneously comes to one's mind

Rambling ~ Wandering one from area to another (Need I explain why "Wandering" is not in itself a negative term as well?)

MILF wrote:

. . . well, except the comment about Wilber's 420 messages.

Ah, so that's where I've been going wrong.  I'm expected to self-medicate prior to reading his drivel (Okay, did you notice the difference there?  That one was most assuredly intended as a slight dig*.).

pENIx wrote:

I'd gladly provide you with my address, a stepladder, a few milligrams of Antabuse and two people to hold you upright. You'd still miss.

You don't know me very well.  I'm actually more coherent and co-ordinated when intoxicated.  Throw in a milligram of xanax and you'd likely tire yourself attempting to pace me.

* Sorry about that, Dude; But, I have to call them as I see them.  You really do seem a decent enough individual for the most part; However, what personality that you do have tends to be removed from the majority of your preachings.  On the bright side, you're certainly doing more than your part to shatter the stereo-type of fudge-packers as the overly-enthusiastic "fay."

feisty wrote:

You'd still miss

What exactly are you saying here? You might not have realized the connotation here.

I realized that he may have been saying I hit the "reset button," but to another guy, there's really little that's equivocal about a shot in the nads. Just to hedge on that a bit, the stepladder was to compensate for my height. It's text, dear. Quite hard to tell when someone's being arch. Speaking o' which...

Decadence wrote:

However, what personality that you do have tends to be removed from the majority of your preachings. On the bright side, you're certainly doing more than your part to shatter the stereo-type of fudge-packers as the overly-enthusiastic "fay."

I see. Fnord gets to go on a tear whenever it suits him, but I'M the preachy one? Well, at least I managed to disrupt a stereotype, so all efforts are not in vain.

I'm sure I'm not alone in occasionally finding it difficult that he can espouse such mercilessly cynical views, and yet expect all the Jews, blacks, gays, women et al. that surround him to treat him as an intellectual equal. This is clearly a character he plays, and he's become fond of it; we, tolerant of his cartoonish intolerance. I'm really not sure what to believe any longer, and it didn't take me 5+ years on Cruel to arrive at that observation. I don't get the sense that knowing one way or the other is going to help much.

I'm not on a personal mission to rebrand homosexuality to make it more palatable, nor am I even remotely in agreement with Zionist ideology (I always thought everybody should relocate to Jersey...were it not for that whole Being-Exterminated-and-Driven-Out-of-Various-Countries-Once-a-Century situation). These things just happen in the course of speaking to others (we do that here, right? it's not just the enjoyment of our own voices?). If I see remarks so incautiously intended to inflame, misinform, or simply spew bile for its own sake, then I'll respond when and how I see fit. By design, this ain't intended to please all the people all the time, but I suppose I will accept the back-handed compliment that it is ever of interest to you at all.

Anywhore... I've had enough of this for the afternoon (and I gotta avoid that dreaded 1000 postcount). Think I'll go upload a few new banners. They might accidentally improve someone's day...

You expect Pale to amuse you, Dec?  Where do you think you are?