Drop the Bible and step away slowly

Discussion in 'World Events' started by GeoffP, Dec 21, 2006.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Border - a place delineating two states or nationalities, with separate educational facilities, enforced or voluntary residence and barriers to social intercourse.

    Within? Do cite.

    Yes, the act of having borders must seem entirely strange to some people.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Could you perhaps explain one or any of these comments?

    They certainly are, man! Good god! They segregate Russians, and Germans, and Czechs and Slovaks all! And Ukranians! Good lord, man! We're all segregationists by your absurd standard.

    Just the teeniest bit selective there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Fisking and misdirection hardly constitute an answer. Come now, Hype: be honest for once in this debate. Tell me how the two-state solution is different from any other fact of national identity anywhere.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    GeoffP: "[segregation] Within [Israel]? Do cite."

    Jews from anywhere are encouraged to immigrate to Israel. Palestinians are not afforded their right to return. This is overt national ethnic segregation.

    "Yes, the act of having borders must seem entirely strange to some people."

    Israel's ethnic segregation through immigration policy is brazen. You're trying to confuse the issue again with nonsense, as if I am denying the legitimacy of all borders. Try and stay with me here, and please stop trying to confuse the issue: I am criticizing segregation, not the existence of legal national borders worldwide.

    "Could you perhaps explain one or any of these comments?"

    Israeli citizenship is not representative of Palestinians, because since its inception, the policy has been (as you well know) to forge a "homeland for the Jewish People" where had been an Arab majority. This deliberate segregationist policy resulted in a demographic reversal reducing Arab citizenry to a 20% minority. But this segregation has also resulted in a daunting demographic compounding-interest problem: From the original displacements of about 800,000 (1948) and 400,000 (1967) resident Arab Palestinians, the refugee population is now surpassing 4 million.

    "[Poland] segregate Russians, and Germans, and Czechs and Slovaks all! And Ukranians! Good lord, man! We're all segregationists by your absurd standard."

    Not so. Poland's policies, especially Westward (EU) are hardly comparable with Israel's institutionalized ethnic segregation. But if you would really like to compare the two, start a thread on the subject and I'll further discuss it.

    "Are we all horrible segregationists?"

    Those of you supporting Israeli apartheid are.

    "Just the teeniest bit selective there."

    Not at all. Israel's segregationist policies are unique in modern times.

    "Tell me how the two-state solution is different from any other fact of national identity anywhere."

    There has been no two-state solution. Israel has demolished Palestine, and continues knocking it down to this day. Let's just compare Israel (one state) with the USA then, since you are absurdly insisting that Israel's ethnic restrictions are so equivalent to those of any country: What ethnicity is excluded from immigration in the USA? What refugees are excluded from returning to the USA?

    Go down a list of all nations with this comparison, and you will find Israel within a lonely group of segregationist countries. Go and discuss this issue honestly with cosmopolitan groups of people, and you are sure to discover that segregationism is increasingly passé - so 18th-century. It's time for you, and for Israel to move forward.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    One person's opinion is nothing but one opinion ....and means nothing in the way of proof or evidence of anything.

    Baron Max
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    yes it does, when he ignores all advice to the contrary and has the power to send 20,000 people to their deaths.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Not all advise, Sam. If you think everyone is against it, then you're obviously reading and seeing ONLY one side of the issue ....which is, of course, your usual tactic.

    Baron Max
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Thats an assumption based on what you think his opinion is reflective of. So its based on your opinion of him. Which, by your own measure is worth nothing.

    Bishop Tutu on the other hand is a representative of his people, he has suffered apartheid and is sympathetic to both sides. So to me, his opinion that Israel practices apartheid is worth far more than your opinion of his opinion.
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Nope ...didn't say that, Sam, and you know it! What I did say is that it's just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of opinions on the issue. Until you've read and analyzed and thought about all of those opinions, then you've admittedly not given all of them the same degree of importance. I.e., you found one that most closely reflects your own opinion, then posted it as if it were real and true.

    You're nothing more that a propagandist ...a good one, admittedly, but a propagandist nonetheless.

    Baron Max
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    There are opinions Max and there are opinions.

    Everyone but you has one.

    Now I for one would rather believe a black man (who happens to be a respected bishop) and who has experience of apartheid over an American who can only screech My country wrong or right, when he is listed the horrors of his country's role and complicity in torture and murder.
     
  13. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Why do have to believe any of it? Why do you feel compelled to make any kind of decision about something that doesn't affect your or your life in India?

    Why do you feel that it's any of your business? And isn't that exactly why you hate the USA ...for sticking their nose into other people's business? And yet you do it all the fuckin' time! Isn't that what we call "hypocritical"?

    Baron Max
     
  14. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Desmond Tutu, preaching to Israel about deplorable conditions, lets look at South Africa,

    BBC NEWS | Africa | S African white farm to be seized
    But he added that South Africa must speed up land reform or face chaos. Eighty per cent of agricultural land is owned by white South Africans, ...
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4273890.stm

    BBC NEWS | World | Africa | SA 'to learn from' land seizures
    South Africa recently said it would move to speed up land reform. ... thousands of government supporters forcibly occupied white-owned farms, ...
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4140990.stm

    Land Occupation in South Africa
    More widely used recently is the term land seizure (especially in the media) to ... In South Africa, LO is widely referred to as land invasion, an apartheid ...
    http://www.landaction.org/display.php?article=137

    CNN.com - World - Zimbabwe to use army for land resettlement ...
    South Africa to buy Airbus planes · Imperial rolls out $4.6B deal ... Zimbabwe government threatens to more than triple farm seizures July 31, 2000 ...
    http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/08/01/zimbabwe.02/



    BBC News | South Africa elections | South Africa's crime crisis
    A serious crime is committed every 17 seconds in South Africa, with unecessary loss of life every day.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/05/99/south_africa_elections/353596.stm

    Crime in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Crime is a major problem in South Africa. According to a survey for the period ... One of the most visible results of South Africa's crime problem is the ...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa

    South Africa: crime, a suspicious epidemic, and some of the world ...
    People are far more concerned about crime. Carjackings and house invasions are a real danger in South Africa, and there’s no real solution for them but to ...
    http://www.escapeartist.com/international/0800_south_africa.html
     
  15. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    What does any of that have to do with the validity of what Tutu said, BR?

    "I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa."
     
  16. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Definitely a case of the Kettle calling the Pot Black, it appears that since the blacks have taken over the South African Government that there is reveres Apartheid going on, with a massive crime increase, the government is condoning driving the Whites out of South Africa, and it is funny to watch that government slip back to full 4th world status.
     
  17. mabufo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    Anyway, the simple fact or the matter is that the stewardess in question needs to respect the laws of the countries she visits. Even if said laws are a tad on the silly side.
     
  18. mabugenjfoley Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    it seems in this world upside down that apatrheid is against whites is ok.
     
  19. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    "since the blacks have taken over the South African Government ... there is reveres Apartheid going on, with a massive crime increase..."

    Please substantiate.

    "since the blacks have taken over the South African Government ... the government is condoning driving the Whites out of South Africa"

    Please substantiate.

    I ask again: What does any of that have to do with the validity of what Tutu said, BR?

    "the simple fact or the matter is that the stewardess in question needs to respect the laws of the countries she visits. Even if said laws are a tad on the silly side."

    Well said, mabufo. Anyone desiring an international career needs to understand this basic principle.

    "it seems in this world upside down that apatrheid is against whites is ok."

    Are you also accusing South Africa of instituting apartheid against whites, mabuqenjfoley? Please substantiate, and keep in mind the general history of South African Apartheid.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Returning Jews are refugees from other nations. Surely you wouldn't object to refugees escaping constant persecution in Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt and othersuch?

    Well, you did indeed seem to be for ages and ages. I was hoping you might get around to some kind of legitimate point.

    Still, you seem to be implying that sovereign nations have no right to decide who and from where they receive immigrants and refugees. Is there any nation in the world that does not have some arbitrary refugee quota? I rather suspect that this "ethnic segregation" thing is more a Middle Eastern trend than a specifically Israeli one: ethnic Jewish and Christian minorities also experience travel restrictions in other ME nations. Sharia, furthermore, dictates that non-muslim inhabitants of islamic countries also have fewer rights than the muslim inhabitants. The Israelis of the early 20th century experienced this oppressive social system, which I suspect has tended to condition their response to the pressure for immigration by Palestinians. Once bitten, twice shy.

    Well, there are many Arabs who are Israeli citizens. How are they no longer Palestinian? Are they only Palestinian if they hate Israel?

    I think the war tended to colour their perspectives on immigration. I wonder why.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But its not apartheid. You really must learn to qualify your points. The situation in Israel for non-Jews is nothing at all like that of non-muslims in islamic countries, or of apartheid. And if I'm a segregationist because I believe Israel has a right to decide who immigrates to its nation, does that make you a genocidist because you think it should be swamped by its Arabic neighbours, whereupon there is no doubt that sharia and a pogrom or ten would be instituted?

    Not at all. All nations control both immigration and citizenship. Are non-muslims allowed to become citizens of Saudi Arabia?

    I can see why your moniker is "hype".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But your point is complete hogwash: a two-state solution was indeed endorsed by Israel, and not so long ago. It was rejected by dear old Yassir. What, then to do? It is hard to continue to legitimately blame Israel for the failure of the Oslo Accords, try as you might. What then?

    What refugees have fled the USA, after attempting genocide against another, that it finds itself politely refused return so that the genocide can be started again, the fundamental articles of hatred and superiority never having been disavowed? What party of religious/ethnic hatred has such a minority endorsed, in "exile"? Are Serbs allowed to reimmigrate to Bosnian territory in the former Yugoslavia? (And, is the toleration of their continued presence marked by the destruction of their churches and cultural places?)

    As you point out, Israel is indeed a special case, but your seemingly deliberate ignorance of history makes me wonder if you understand precisely how it is a special case. Should the Polish, having won the war, then admit overwhelming numbers of German immigrants, or be pilloried for failing to do so? Should the Mexicans, having fought a war against America, then smilingly have admit hundreds of thousands of American immigrants so that there might be renewed justification for another Spanish-American conflict? What precise historical example justifies your model for a modern, collective hara-kiri by the Israelis?

    In another light: doth not even Mohammed himself (in the 'moderate' impression of Sura 9) rail against treaty-breakers, and sentence them to oppression, death or conversion? Is it not then the best example of the platinum rule that one should treat other cultures as they would act themselves?

    Seriously, I think it is time that Palestine, and you, finally admitted to yourselves that without any real equality for non-muslims in the islamic world, and with indeed a key religious compulsion for same discrimination, the call for reintegration really stems from (pardon the pun) fundamental silliness and/or supremacism. It is indeed a very silly notion to think that demands for (as you put it) social equality should be couched by a society without any history of it and then taken prima facie.
     
  21. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    GeoffP: "Surely you wouldn't object to refugees escaping constant persecution in Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt and othersuch?"

    I'm not sure refugees you're talking about, or what the relevance is here. We are discussing the return (not flight) of refugees.

    "ethnic Jewish and Christian minorities also experience travel restrictions in other ME nations."

    We're talking here about segregationist policies involving the return of displaced persons, and ethnic selectivity for residency. I'm not aware of similar restrictions on immigration as instituted by Israel: That is, I don't believe that Christians and Jews are prohibited from Arab countries as categorically as Arabs are prohibited from entering Israel for residency. Take a particular country's case, and we can compare that policy with that of Israel.

    "Sharia, furthermore, dictates that non-muslim inhabitants of islamic countries also have fewer rights than the muslim inhabitants."

    There is no established standard of Sharia across the Mideast or Asia. Again, if you would like to take up a particular example, I'll discuss it with you.

    "Once bitten, twice shy."

    That's no excuse for apartheid.

    "The situation in Israel for non-Jews is nothing at all like that of non-muslims in islamic countries, or of apartheid."

    Regarding immigration, it most certainly is: Jews are welcome. Goyim are not. That's ethnic separatism, plain and simple.

    "I'm a segregationist because I believe Israel has a right to decide who immigrates to its nation"

    Correct, because the official policy includes ethnic segregation.

    "does that make you a genocidist because you think it should be swamped by its Arabic neighbours"

    No. Nowhere have I advocated genocide. I am here advocating that Arabs and Jews be encouraged to coexist, just as they were throughout the Mideast in the first half of the last century. I would like to see Jewish communities return and thrive across the region, through voluntary re-integration as the natural result of the reconciliation of the zionist disenfranchisement of Palestinians, and all the resultant animosity that has taken place from 1948 to the present.

    "What refugees have fled the USA, after attempting genocide against another, that it finds itself politely refused return so that the genocide can be started again, the fundamental articles of hatred and superiority never having been disavowed? What party of religious/ethnic hatred has such a minority endorsed, in "exile"?

    That's just too muddled make any sense of. Please rephrase the question.

    "Are Serbs allowed to reimmigrate to Bosnian territory in the former Yugoslavia?

    Yes. Refugee return and real property restitution in Bosnia-Herzegovina - lessons learned for the Palestinian case

    "Should the Polish, having won the war, then admit overwhelming numbers of German immigrants, or be pilloried for failing to do so?"

    Germans, or non-Slavs (to use an ethnic comparison) are not excluded from Poland. You may delve into the darker corners of the Potsdam Conference, or the years when monsters like Salomen Morel were oppressing Germans (and ethnic Germans were fleeing) but there is no comparable segregation in Poland today. You can't compare the experience of Volkdeutsche and Auslandsdeutsche who may freely enter Poland today with that of any exiled Palestinians who might similarly make an attempt at entry into Israel. It's not the same experience at all. The borders between Germany and Poland, and the borders between Israel and Gaza, for example, are very, very different places. The immigration policies of today's Poland and Israel hold scant resemblance.

    "Should the Mexicans, having fought a war against America, then smilingly have admit hundreds of thousands of American immigrants so that there might be renewed justification for another Spanish-American conflict?"

    Americans are welcome in Mexico. Thousands retire there every year. I don't see what you're getting at here.

    "What precise historical example justifies your model for a modern, collective hara-kiri by the Israelis?"

    None. I am advocating the reconciliation and re-integration of all Semites, not the suicide of anyone. You're misrepresenting my statements again.

    "doth not even Mohammed himself (in the 'moderate' impression of Sura 9) rail against treaty-breakers, and sentence them to oppression, death or conversion?"

    I know not. Why dost thou speak with gamol tunge? What does this have to do with Israel's immigration policies?

    "Is it not then the best example of the platinum rule that one should treat other cultures as they would act themselves? "

    Whose established "platinum rule" is that, and how could any laws ever make any sense if they followed that almost unrecognisably-twisted version of the Golden one?

    "without any real equality for non-muslims in the islamic world... the call for reintegration really stems from (pardon the pun) fundamental silliness and/or supremacism."

    That's just infantile mockery masquerading as serious thought: "Nyah, nyah, I know you are, but what am I?" Grow up.

    "It is indeed a very silly notion to think that demands for (as you put it) social equality should be couched by a society without any history of it and then taken prima facie."

    That's your deliberately arcane way of making an out-of-hand dismissal- nothing more than a veiled and pompous expression of the following (if I may be allowed to translate): Arab society is too barbaric to dare speak to Israelis of progress. Very impressive discourse there, Geoff (not).
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Migration is migration, hypey. Movement is movement. Is it free or not? If not, why not?

    Saudi Arabia would tend to disagree, I think. And dhimmitude is utterly, utterly segregationist. Why then do you not rail against it? Why is your condemnation so...ethnically selective, shall we say?

    This is ridiculous. Are you seriously implying that one ought not discuss the desert - because, of course, the exact nature of a desert varies across it's length - but instead should debate specific dunes, without ever realizing that it is the desert itself that is so hostile. Sharia is sharia, hype. It's bad for nonmuslims, to one degree or another, throughout its breadth and that makes it uniformly wrong, period.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How about the biting? On what basis do you excuse that? Why precisely should it be ignored? What would happen if it were ignored?

    Well, then, why don't you post some specific examples of this goyistic refusal and we can debate them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I altered your quote of my post so that it was less deceptive - sorry.

    This is laughable. Islam cannot coexist in such numbers with any other religion. Illustrate your examples if you believe otherwise. Feigning ignorant innocence is ridiculous, hype: there would be no coexistence, and even you know it. Now, if you want to post your pie-in-the-sky hopes and dreams, please qualify them as such and I will hesitate to object - although I may hold you up for ridicule.

    In similar vein, I want world peace. Will it happen? No, however much I might wish it.

    This is laughable - there was no "coexistence". There was dhimmitude and implicit second-class citizen status. The Eid marches, both then and today, illustrate this fact amply. I am scarcely able to accept that you would honestly believe such idiocy.

    Don't hold your breath. Reintegration would require an end to persecution and dhimmitude. So again: don't hold your breath. It's akin to calling the experience of black Americans in the early 19th century "coexistence".

    I laughed so hard I almost cried when I read this. You are perhaps unaware of sectarian violence by Arab muslims against Jews prior to 1948?

    I suggest the following links. There are...several mentions of such aggression.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936-1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

    For your further education - a need sorely in evidence - look up the phrase "dhimmitude". Ask yourself what the Saudi authorities would have done to your beloved father had he dared try to convert Saudi nationals and the religious police got wind of it. Try and find out about the pact of Umar, or the Quran, or the hadiths, or al-Buhkari, or something related to something.

    Rather, it makes too much sense for you to honestly respond to it. No worries: I shall add it to the pile of other things you can't answer about the roots of the conflict. It is a weighty mound, indeed. Why would Israel object to the return of millions of people with a socioreligious interest in oppressing Israelis? Who can say? A weighty question for those indisposed to weightiness.

    Ah, nowhere in your document did I see the word "Serb" - as in, they who are alleged to have started the conflict.

    I also noticed this in the text:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You should probably give them a stern talking to. They seem to think that military curfew and restrictions of movement are for some reason required to prevent violence. Silly them.

    Oh, of course! And Poland has permitted all those ethnic Germans to return and reclaim their land: in Prussia, in the Sudetenla...what's that you say? The Poles told them to what? Well, that's just rude, and anatomically impossible, I might add. It also does not particularly prove your point, of course.

    Well, that's surprising, in the face of the ongoing terrorist campaign by revanchionist Nazis to force the Poles out of - what's that you say? There's no such campaign?

    A fine parallel.

    You are perhaps unfamiliar with the method of acquisition of Texas and, I think, New Mexico and California by the US? Another history lesson you missed whilst dazing in the Kingdom. I'll short it for you: demographic conquest. Now say: "Thankyou for the history lesson, Geoff."

    I'm sorry - you weren't advocating hara-kiri per se, just a blissfully ignorant romp in a minefield. My mistake. That your plan would, in fact, translate into such hara-kiri is of course not your fault, but those of your teachers.

    Rather, this has to do with the islamic treatment of non-muslims, and of treaty-breakers. In that sense, and unlike your posts, it is an actual analogy.

    Hype, don't blame me for advocating the rule. I didn't make it. I merely thought it would be appropriate to treat people as their own laws dictate they treat others. I agree that the laws of dhimmitude make no human sense, however. That really isn't in doubt. The point was that if one were to treat islamic societies by their own rules, then there would be no doubt whatever that what Israel did, and has done, is completely correct. "Fight the idolaters until they pay the tax, or all religion is for Judah" would be an appropriate paraphrase. This does not, of course, mean that I subscribe to the Platinum Rule, but merely that hoisting others by their own petards is a hobby of mine.

    LOL - this from the man who has yet to admit there even is such a principle as dhimmitude. The scope of your inadmission to date is staggering.

    I have presented my case very charitably to you: end dhimmitude, end the two-class citizen system present to one degree or another in every islamic state, and then we can discuss reintegration. Assuming, of course, that anyone still trusts that such oppression would ever be truly ended. My impression is that it would continue to smoulder, waiting for the right moment, in the pages of the Quran, and in the hadiths. (But let's pretend for a while to the case of zero recidivism.) First, renounce supremacism. Then, let's see. Why do you feel this is a problem?

    I liked the "not". That was very mature. Not.

    Sorry: 'Arab society' as you put - or more accurately, islamic society - is not my fault either. It exists, it is oppressive, it ensconces sharia. My position is not a dismissal, but rather specifies prerequisites, rather like demanding a bear get a declaw before it moves in. If you would rather live with a still quite dangerous bear, that is your affair, but that does not mean anyone else - the Israelis, for instance - has to, or should.

    If you want return, first illustrate that the situation of Jews in Israel/Palestine prior to 1948 will not be repeated, and that the insurge of Palestinians will not immediately demand sharia. Simple. Should be easy for someone who knows so much of dhimmitude, and the ME, and everything else.

    The only drawback is that the evidence is not really on your side.

    Best,

    Geoff
     
  23. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Firstly, non-Jews can naturalise as citizens in Israel after a residence period, as is common in immigration law. (Does this hold in the UAE? Why are 80% of that country's residents non-citizens?) Secondly, have a look at Jordanian Nationality Law:

    Is Jordan an Apartheid state?
     

Share This Page