Army 1 - Lowing 0
You are one arrogant little cuss aren't ya. how is it I just showed my ignorance?Man With No Name wrote:
well then you just proved your ignorance. I stated my disagreement with the OP in my first post in this thread.lowing wrote:
Actually, you were one of the ones I was thinking of specifically with your spelling corrections.Man With No Name wrote:
good thing I dont fit in that category and still think youre a moron
oh and by the way
it is you're and not youre.
now, care to show where you were proven correct with your use of the term "Apartheid"? All these replies and you have yet to have proven anyone wrong. But you are great at changing the topic.
and I already RE-posted the definition and Sharia Law does seem to qualify. scroll up
whats sharia law got to do with this conference?lowing wrote:
You are one arrogant little cuss aren't ya. how is it I just showed my ignorance?Man With No Name wrote:
well then you just proved your ignorance. I stated my disagreement with the OP in my first post in this thread.lowing wrote:
Actually, you were one of the ones I was thinking of specifically with your spelling corrections.
oh and by the way
it is you're and not youre.
now, care to show where you were proven correct with your use of the term "Apartheid"? All these replies and you have yet to have proven anyone wrong. But you are great at changing the topic.
and I already RE-posted the definition and Sharia Law does seem to qualify. scroll up
whenever there is a issue you are apologetic about you always point your finger at islam/muslims etc.
I didn't, I used it in the sense as what WOULD happen if the Arab and Islamic nations got their way. This was clear in my post. I then used Iran as an example of Jews living under Sharia law. THey are not equal and they are discriminated against.Man With No Name wrote:
is it that difficult for you to understand the difference between internal policy and foreign policy? really?lowing wrote:
a·part·heid (ə-pärt'hīt', -hāt')Man With No Name wrote:
lowing. link me a post where I was proven wrong about your idiotic use of the term "apartheid"
please.
cant, can you?
n.
An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, INVOLVING POLITICAL LEGAL and ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION against nonwhites.
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
Now tell me how Sharia Law does not do this shit in any capacity
You cannot use the word "Apartheid" to describe one nation's sentiment towards another. lowing, do you have a high school education?
and Im repeating the same reply to your argument. You havent proven a thing except your ignorance.
I dont care about sharia law and iran or whoopty woo or how you want to change what you originally said so you wont look like the idiot you are.
You said muslims and middle eastern countries are attempting apartheid against israel.
its like saying the US is attempting term limits on micronesia's head of state. One nation cannot dictate anothers national laws. How many times do I have to repeat it before you understand?
Apartheid is not the right word you ignorant
I dont care about sharia law and iran or whoopty woo or how you want to change what you originally said so you wont look like the idiot you are.
You said muslims and middle eastern countries are attempting apartheid against israel.
its like saying the US is attempting term limits on micronesia's head of state. One nation cannot dictate anothers national laws. How many times do I have to repeat it before you understand?
Apartheid is not the right word you ignorant
Last edited by Man With No Name (2009-04-20 14:40:29)
Sorry, I am not inclined to go through the whole thing again, and certainly not with you. Start from the beginning and go from thererammunition wrote:
whats sharia law got to do with this conference?lowing wrote:
You are one arrogant little cuss aren't ya. how is it I just showed my ignorance?Man With No Name wrote:
well then you just proved your ignorance. I stated my disagreement with the OP in my first post in this thread.
now, care to show where you were proven correct with your use of the term "Apartheid"? All these replies and you have yet to have proven anyone wrong. But you are great at changing the topic.
and I already RE-posted the definition and Sharia Law does seem to qualify. scroll up
whenever there is a issue you are apologetic about you always point your finger at islam/muslims etc.
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
nice!!!!
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
nice!!!!
nothing little about me lowing. save that talk for some tween on this site.
Nope I didn't. go back and re-read my entire post. I said " IF there is any "apartheid policies", it is against Israel by the Arab and Islamic nations, and IT WOULD BE SO, if it were not for Israel's ability to defend itself and fend off any such action.Man With No Name wrote:
and Im repeating the same reply to your argument. You havent proven a thing except your ignorance.
I dont care about sharia law and iran or whoopty woo or how you want to change what you originally said so you wont look like the idiot you are.
You said muslims and middle eastern countries are attempting apartheid against israel.
its like saying the US is attempting term limits on micronesia's head of state. One nation cannot dictate anothers national laws. How many times do I have to repeat it before you understand?
Apartheid is not the right word you ignorant
but please keep up with your condenscending manner. I find it quite humorous and entertaining reducing you to it.
including your arroganceMan With No Name wrote:
nothing little about me lowing. save that talk for some tween on this site.
not surprised lowing you are dodging the quotes i posted by Israeli leaders
he's done a runna, not surprising
he's done a runna, not surprising
Last edited by rammunition (2009-04-20 14:53:10)
I guess actual legal definitions of words cant trump your own. If you really think describing a foreign policy sentiment using a word that has a very specific definition regarding internal laws, then all I could say is thankyou. It only invalidates any future argument you may have.lowing wrote:
Nope I didn't. go back and re-read my entire post. I said " IF there is any "apartheid policies", it is against Israel by the Arab and Islamic nations, and IT WOULD BE SO, if it were not for Israel's ability to defend itself and fend off any such action.Man With No Name wrote:
and Im repeating the same reply to your argument. You havent proven a thing except your ignorance.
I dont care about sharia law and iran or whoopty woo or how you want to change what you originally said so you wont look like the idiot you are.
You said muslims and middle eastern countries are attempting apartheid against israel.
its like saying the US is attempting term limits on micronesia's head of state. One nation cannot dictate anothers national laws. How many times do I have to repeat it before you understand?
Apartheid is not the right word you ignorant
The first thing they taught us in Psy Op school was once a persons credibility was gone, that person could never get it back.
Once youve consistently proven your stupidity in one area, how is anyone going to take what you say about anything else seriously?
Im pro israeli and Ive fought islamic fundamentalists. You are a nothing compared to the shit Ive done. yet, I dont see a whole group of people as the enemy.
lowing wrote:
but please keep up with your condenscending manner. I find it quite humorous and entertaining reducing you to it.
lowing wrote:
including your arrogance
lowing wrote:
You know what I find so cute? All of you guys out there that start running out of the woodwork if there is even a minute possibility that I have mis-spoken. YOu all jump on board like rodants trying to get in a shot at my possible mistakes. Kinda flattering.
reducing me to it? thats how I start off baby.lowing wrote:
You are one arrogant little cuss aren't ya.
I am most definately NOT above name calling.
but I see what youve been reduced to.
Anyone else notice how the angrier or more frustrated lowing got, the more spelling mistakes and typos were to be found. I did.
I don't know if it's racism or censorship, but walking out over something like this is just ignorant.
Disputing the creation of the state of Israel isn't something that should be taboo. There is a very valid argument that Israel is a nation that should have never been re-created.
Still, the worth of this discussion is merely academic, since the modern state of Israel has existed officially for over 60 years now. Israel has a right to exist, but Palestinians have a right to better living conditions.
Disputing the creation of the state of Israel isn't something that should be taboo. There is a very valid argument that Israel is a nation that should have never been re-created.
Still, the worth of this discussion is merely academic, since the modern state of Israel has existed officially for over 60 years now. Israel has a right to exist, but Palestinians have a right to better living conditions.
And what you fail to realise is that 'The State of Israel' was an attack on the region and the people that populate that region. Period. Oh, I forgot - you condone 'might makes right' and don't hold to the principle of 'thou shalt not steal'.... Get out there and start advocating for a Mexican state in south west USA: put your money where your mouth is...lowing wrote:
Maybe it is because the world leaders understand and know what you and your brother refuse to recognize. Israel is the victim against Arab and Islamic hatred. They are and have always been in the position of defending itself against constant harassment and bombardment. Your problem comes into play because they actually have the nerve to, not only defend themselves, but defend themselves well, against the "peace loving and tolerant" nations of the ME that surround it.
The fact that the world leaders ( the ones that really know what is going on) refuse to sit and listen to absurd Israel bashing any longer is a point against your belief that Israel is the problem in the region and not those that actively seek to destroy it.
hilarious when people post quotes to support the indefensible but when confronted with a racist and hideous remark from the iranian midget about removing Israel from the map they rush to say the translation was wrong
and when the agenda for this conference was clearly going to be a hate fest the wise nations declined to give the iranian midget an audience......those impressed by his rhetoric are easily pleased
those who boycotted were right to do so and those who showed contempt by walking out were right to do so.....
why give credence to the ravings of a lunatic?
sounds like a situation quite close to home...lol
and when the agenda for this conference was clearly going to be a hate fest the wise nations declined to give the iranian midget an audience......those impressed by his rhetoric are easily pleased
those who boycotted were right to do so and those who showed contempt by walking out were right to do so.....
why give credence to the ravings of a lunatic?
sounds like a situation quite close to home...lol
Last edited by benefit (2009-04-20 15:10:36)
What exactly did he say that was racist, if you don't mind me asking? His remarks were inflammatory, but racist? A lot of his remarks were correct, just horribly undiplomatic and destined to make a conference on racism rather pointless. Let's not forget that Israel is a horrid human-rights abusing and quite frankly racist nation. The very fact it grants citizenship to anyone anywhere in the world if they happen to have verifiable Jewish heritage makes it inherently racist in that it enforces a majority population of one race over another.benefit wrote:
hilarious when people post quotes to support the indefensible but when confronted with a racist and hideous remark from the iranian midget about removing Israel from the map they rush to say the translation was wrong
and when the agenda for this conference was clearly going to be a hate fest the wise nations declined to give the iranian midget an audience......those impressed by his rhetoric are easily pleased
those who boycotted were right to do so and those who showed contempt by walking out were right to do so.....
why give credence to the ravings of a lunatic?
sounds like a situation quite close to home...lol
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-04-20 15:18:26)
they were even described by the french minister as a hate rantCameronPoe wrote:
What exactly did he say that was racist, if you don't mind me asking? His remarks were inflammatory, but racist? A lot of his remarks were correct, just horribly undiplomatic and destined to make a conference on racism rather pointless. Let's not forget that Israel is a horrid human-rights abusing and quite frankly racist nation. The very fact it grants citizenship to anyone anywhere in the world if they happen to have verifiable Jewish heritage makes it inherently racist in that it enforces a majority population of one race over another.benefit wrote:
hilarious when people post quotes to support the indefensible but when confronted with a racist and hideous remark from the iranian midget about removing Israel from the map they rush to say the translation was wrong
and when the agenda for this conference was clearly going to be a hate fest the wise nations declined to give the iranian midget an audience......those impressed by his rhetoric are easily pleased
those who boycotted were right to do so and those who showed contempt by walking out were right to do so.....
why give credence to the ravings of a lunatic?
sounds like a situation quite close to home...lol
imagine if an israeli had made these comments about iran.......
and it was racist as the intention was to criticise israel and in the eyes of many haters there is no difference between jews and isreal
he should put his own house in order and that of his mate in sudan before he criticises anyone else's policies
just how many people have been murdered by arab muslims in darfur with the sudanese president getting support from arab leaders when condemned by the UN?
his attacks were all at the usual suspects ...israel or course....america and europe....but hey if you don't have problem with him ......good on ya....enough diplomats did and i agree with them ....not the mealy mouthed supporters who try to justify his odious behaviour
Last edited by benefit (2009-04-20 15:25:40)
I said point out the racism numnutz. Quote the man. The specific references in his speech you deem to be racist. His actual words. Post them please.benefit wrote:
they were even described by the french minister as a hate rant
imagine if an israeli had made these comments about iran.......
and it was racist as the intention was to criticise israel and in the eyes of many haters there is no difference between jews and isreal
he should put his own house in order and that of his mate in sudan before he criticises anyone else's policies
just how many people have been murdered by arab muslims in darfur with the sudanese president getting support from arab leaders when condemned by the UN?
his attacks were all at the usual suspects ...israel or course....america and europe....but hey if you don't have problem with him ......good on ya....enough diplomats did and i agree with them ....not the mealy mouthed supporters who try to justify his odious behaviour
FTR Jews =/= Israel. If it did then the 25,000 Jews living in Iran would probably be dead a very long time....
How is the Sudan conflict relevant in any way, shape or form to Israel? I'm puzzled. And by the way Iranians aren't Arabs. And I don't think much of Ahmedinejad. On the other hand I don't suffer from anti-Muslim bigotry.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-04-20 15:30:45)
Again I said "IF" and I also said "would be so, IF" meaning, IF the Arabs and Muslims in the region had their way, "apartheid policies" would be implemented. IE apartheid TYPE policies would be implemented. I used Iran and its treatment of the Jews in Iran as an example of this.Man With No Name wrote:
I guess actual legal definitions of words cant trump your own. If you really think describing a foreign policy sentiment using a word that has a very specific definition regarding internal laws, then all I could say is thankyou. It only invalidates any future argument you may have.lowing wrote:
Nope I didn't. go back and re-read my entire post. I said " IF there is any "apartheid policies", it is against Israel by the Arab and Islamic nations, and IT WOULD BE SO, if it were not for Israel's ability to defend itself and fend off any such action.Man With No Name wrote:
and Im repeating the same reply to your argument. You havent proven a thing except your ignorance.
I dont care about sharia law and iran or whoopty woo or how you want to change what you originally said so you wont look like the idiot you are.
You said muslims and middle eastern countries are attempting apartheid against israel.
its like saying the US is attempting term limits on micronesia's head of state. One nation cannot dictate anothers national laws. How many times do I have to repeat it before you understand?
Apartheid is not the right word you ignorant
The first thing they taught us in Psy Op school was once a persons credibility was gone, that person could never get it back.
Once youve consistently proven your stupidity in one area, how is anyone going to take what you say about anything else seriously?
Im pro israeli and Ive fought islamic fundamentalists. You are a nothing compared to the shit Ive done. yet, I dont see a whole group of people as the enemy.lowing wrote:
but please keep up with your condenscending manner. I find it quite humorous and entertaining reducing you to it.lowing wrote:
including your arrogancelowing wrote:
You know what I find so cute? All of you guys out there that start running out of the woodwork if there is even a minute possibility that I have mis-spoken. YOu all jump on board like rodants trying to get in a shot at my possible mistakes. Kinda flattering.reducing me to it? thats how I start off baby.lowing wrote:
You are one arrogant little cuss aren't ya.
I am most definately NOT above name calling.
but I see what youve been reduced to.
Anyone else notice how the angrier or more frustrated lowing got, the more spelling mistakes and typos were to be found. I did.
I do not care if you are willing to acknowledge this or not. Nor do I care if you think I, or my opinions are "credible". If you do not, then simply ignore my posts and do not respond to them.
I am not dodging anything, I simply do not care. Israel is no threat to the west and would not be a threat to the ME if not for the actions of the Arabs and Muslims.rammunition wrote:
not surprised lowing you are dodging the quotes i posted by Israeli leaders
he's done a runna, not surprising
The same can not be said about Islam. Once Israel is "dealt with" Islam will turn its attention further toward other non-Islamic nations.
YEah the land that is now Israel was once a bustling thriving populous before Israel showed up huh?CameronPoe wrote:
And what you fail to realise is that 'The State of Israel' was an attack on the region and the people that populate that region. Period. Oh, I forgot - you condone 'might makes right' and don't hold to the principle of 'thou shalt not steal'.... Get out there and start advocating for a Mexican state in south west USA: put your money where your mouth is...lowing wrote:
Maybe it is because the world leaders understand and know what you and your brother refuse to recognize. Israel is the victim against Arab and Islamic hatred. They are and have always been in the position of defending itself against constant harassment and bombardment. Your problem comes into play because they actually have the nerve to, not only defend themselves, but defend themselves well, against the "peace loving and tolerant" nations of the ME that surround it.
The fact that the world leaders ( the ones that really know what is going on) refuse to sit and listen to absurd Israel bashing any longer is a point against your belief that Israel is the problem in the region and not those that actively seek to destroy it.
Not relevant in the least little bit.lowing wrote:
YEah the land that is now Israel was once a bustling thriving populous before Israel showed up huh?CameronPoe wrote:
And what you fail to realise is that 'The State of Israel' was an attack on the region and the people that populate that region. Period. Oh, I forgot - you condone 'might makes right' and don't hold to the principle of 'thou shalt not steal'.... Get out there and start advocating for a Mexican state in south west USA: put your money where your mouth is...lowing wrote:
Maybe it is because the world leaders understand and know what you and your brother refuse to recognize. Israel is the victim against Arab and Islamic hatred. They are and have always been in the position of defending itself against constant harassment and bombardment. Your problem comes into play because they actually have the nerve to, not only defend themselves, but defend themselves well, against the "peace loving and tolerant" nations of the ME that surround it.
The fact that the world leaders ( the ones that really know what is going on) refuse to sit and listen to absurd Israel bashing any longer is a point against your belief that Israel is the problem in the region and not those that actively seek to destroy it.
unfortunately you are right.....look at the mess britain is getting itself into.....lowing wrote:
I am not dodging anything, I simply do not care. Israel is no threat to the west and would not be a threat to the ME if not for the actions of the Arabs and Muslims.rammunition wrote:
not surprised lowing you are dodging the quotes i posted by Israeli leaders
he's done a runna, not surprising
The same can not be said about Islam. Once Israel is "dealt with" Islam will turn its attention further toward other non-Islamic nations.
Lowing, you need to know how Israel was created.. It will help you understand the feeling of the native population in the ME.lowing wrote:
YEah the land that is now Israel was once a bustling thriving populous before Israel showed up huh?
Let me quote the late Jack Bernstein on this:
"THE LATE JACK BERNSTEIN was a rarity—an American Zionist who actually "returned" to Israel, not for a vacation or to summer on a kibbutz, but to live and die in Israel building a Jewish nation. What makes him almost one of a kind, though, was his ability to see through the sham and hype to the oppressive, racist, parasitic character of Zionism as practiced in modern Israel, and his courage to denounce it with the force and fervor of an Old Testament prophet."Jack Bernstein wrote:
To accommodate the increasing European Jewish migration, the Jews needed more lands but the Palestinian Arabs refused to sell. So, to get more land from the Palestinians, these communist oriented European (Ashkenazi) Jews resorted to the one thing at which they are adept -- TERRORISM.
Their first major act of terrorism against the Palestinians was at the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. During the night of April 9, 1948, two Zionist terrorist gangs, the Irgun and the Stem Gang attacked and massacred over 250 men, women and children.
Menachem Begin, leader of the attack on Deir Yassin and later Prime Minister of Israel, has this to say, "The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the 'victory' at Deir Yassin'.
The massacre at Deir Yassin caused other Palestinians to flee their homes in fear. Zionist terrorists drove trucks with loudspeakers through the streets and over the roads of Palestine warning Palestinians that what happened at Dear Yassin would happen to them if they didn't leave.
These Zionist terrorists weren't bluffing: For Example:
They killed 60 Palestinians at Balad Esh Sheikh.
They blew up 20 homes in Sa'sa, killing 60 women and children.
They killed a number of women who were working in Saint Simon monastery in Jerusalem.
They massacred 250 at Lydda.
They killed 200, mostly old people, in the village mosque in Ed-Dawayimeh.
They killed 51 workers as they returned from their fields at Kafr Qasem.
Christian inhabitants of Kaba Bir'im were expelled from the village and the village destroyed. The village cemetery was desecrated, including the smashing of 73 crosses.
I strongly suggest you Lowing to read his book.. i can provide the link if you want it.. Nothing nazi or anti-semite.. the guy was a ZIONIST..
edit:
And it's important to know that information too:
"There are two distinct groups of Jews in the world and they come from two different areas of the world -- the Sephardic Jews from the Middle East and North Africa and the Ashkenazi Jews come from Eastern Europe. The Sephardic is the oldest group and it is they, if any, who are the Jews described in the Bible because they lived in the area described in the Bible. They are blood relatives to the Arabs -- the only difference between them is the religion."
Sephardic jews and arabs lives in peace together for a long time before the creation of Israel..There is no "natural" hatred of muslims towards jews..
Last edited by AutralianChainsaw (2009-04-20 16:11:43)
and why not, it was worthless waste land before Israel build a nation out of it.CameronPoe wrote:
Not relevant in the least little bit.lowing wrote:
YEah the land that is now Israel was once a bustling thriving populous before Israel showed up huh?CameronPoe wrote:
And what you fail to realise is that 'The State of Israel' was an attack on the region and the people that populate that region. Period. Oh, I forgot - you condone 'might makes right' and don't hold to the principle of 'thou shalt not steal'.... Get out there and start advocating for a Mexican state in south west USA: put your money where your mouth is...