Mubarak says ... [modified]
-
Not really, for the picture to be clear, I recommend you read the old testiment with focus on Imsaleites and Philistines. I would also read about the crusuades. If you have I would also read about World War 1 and World War 2 and the struggle of power in the middleast. Almost everything Oakman said is either wrong or 1/2 truth.
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Almost everything Oakman said is either wrong or 1/2 truth
Everything I said is the truth. If I had the time and wanted to take the trouble I could cite you on the subject of Palestinians. Your disdain and dislike for them comes through in every word. Every historical fact that I put down can be easily checked in any decent history of the region. Numbers might be a little off since I was working from memory, but they're in the ballpark. Israelis don't have the right of it in the Middle East, Bassam, and I think you'd be hard put to find me ever saying they did. I can see clearly that they are defensive, angry, capable of justifying great cruelty and clinging desperately to a feeling of superiority to explain their penchant for violence. But Arabs don't have the right of it in the Middle East, either, Bassam, and you seem to need to claim they do. I can see clearly that they are defensive, angry, capable of justifying great cruelty and clinging desperately to a feeling of superiority to explain their penchant for violence. You say you don't see that at all and instead apparently want to believe I'm a racist for being able to spot and tell the truth.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Almost everything Oakman said is either wrong or 1/2 truth
Everything I said is the truth. If I had the time and wanted to take the trouble I could cite you on the subject of Palestinians. Your disdain and dislike for them comes through in every word. Every historical fact that I put down can be easily checked in any decent history of the region. Numbers might be a little off since I was working from memory, but they're in the ballpark. Israelis don't have the right of it in the Middle East, Bassam, and I think you'd be hard put to find me ever saying they did. I can see clearly that they are defensive, angry, capable of justifying great cruelty and clinging desperately to a feeling of superiority to explain their penchant for violence. But Arabs don't have the right of it in the Middle East, either, Bassam, and you seem to need to claim they do. I can see clearly that they are defensive, angry, capable of justifying great cruelty and clinging desperately to a feeling of superiority to explain their penchant for violence. You say you don't see that at all and instead apparently want to believe I'm a racist for being able to spot and tell the truth.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
I agree with you when you give justice its due like you did in this post and disagree with you when you show racism as you did in a previous post equating palistinians to dogs. Contrary to your stereotype of you always knowing what I think, I greatly understand the jewish sentiment and distrust they have to the palestinains because I am a minority too , I do know what fear means. Yet that doesnt mean they have right to deprive the palestinians of the right of choosing their own destiny which their own state.
-
I agree with you when you give justice its due like you did in this post and disagree with you when you show racism as you did in a previous post equating palistinians to dogs. Contrary to your stereotype of you always knowing what I think, I greatly understand the jewish sentiment and distrust they have to the palestinains because I am a minority too , I do know what fear means. Yet that doesnt mean they have right to deprive the palestinians of the right of choosing their own destiny which their own state.
Bassam Saoud wrote:
when you show racism as you did in a previous post equating palistinians to dogs
Bullshit. My simile made them feral, not dogs. But even if I did, Palestinians aren't a race. When the Lebanese pen them up in labor camps and then use their army to go in and shoot down anyone who has said he won't put up with such treatment any longer, that's not racism, either - just prejudice and savagery. Playing the racism card and the minority card and the victim card in one paragraph is pretty good. I'm trying to remember if you have ever discussed the middle east without playing at least one of them.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
Bassam Saoud wrote:
when you show racism as you did in a previous post equating palistinians to dogs
Bullshit. My simile made them feral, not dogs. But even if I did, Palestinians aren't a race. When the Lebanese pen them up in labor camps and then use their army to go in and shoot down anyone who has said he won't put up with such treatment any longer, that's not racism, either - just prejudice and savagery. Playing the racism card and the minority card and the victim card in one paragraph is pretty good. I'm trying to remember if you have ever discussed the middle east without playing at least one of them.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
Oakman wrote:
bullsh*t. My simile made them feral, not dogs. But even if I did, Palestinians aren't a race. When the Lebanese pen them up in labor camps and then use their army to go in and shoot down anyone who has said he won't put up with such treatment any longer, that's not racism, either - just prejudice and savagery.
Okay - There is a bloody history between Lebanon and the palestanians due to palestinian intervention in lebanese politics. There are other reasons due to religious/cultural differences. It was a bloody civil war, something I am not proud out in my history. But I am a rational man, I recognize and learn from my mistakes. I never justify them as you seem to do.
Oakman wrote:
Playing the racism card and the minority card and the victim card in one paragraph is pretty good. I'm trying to remember if you have ever discussed the middle east without playing at least one of them.
Maybe because I am a minority and I am a victim. This is not philisophical debate. I live in Lebanon, I live in the middleeast, this is something I deeply believe in.
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Well, for one thing, the ultimate source is a Syrian state controlled paper
ok, I interpret that as saying, "biased against Israel" - am I correct??
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Settlements will stay (and grow)
This is an issue I really really do not understand. As much as I have been able to infer, Israelis have built / are builing on land the Palestinians consider to be theirs. But by the same token how do Palestinians have any greater claim on the land then does Israel, because isn't this land that Israel won during a war that was defensive and not offensive? I'm sure your realize that I'm far removed from that part of the world and have limited knowledge but this does reflect my understanding.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
refugee issue not resolved
This one I think I understand, but please correct me if you think I'm wrong. My understanding is that there are a (huge) number of Palestinians that believe they have a claim on lands within what the majority of the rest of the world considers to be Israel plus land that is in greater dispute (ie., Israeli settlements). The desire is to repatriot all ceding land in both categories to the Palestinians. That would be sheer folly n the part of Israel as it gaurantees their nation be lost. Why is that, the idea of repatrioting, an Israeli problem? Why can't these people be resettled in land currently occupied and controlled by Palestinians??
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
East Jerusalem
This I really do not understand, at all. If I'm correct (and again, please correct me) the idea is to cede half of the city to Palestinians - sort of like America ceding half of Washington DC to Iran or North Korea, an invitation to suicide.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Not much of a chance of peace going forward with what he's offering.
Why? Where is any sort of peace proposal from the Palestinians? What I heard sounded to me like an offer, a proposal that would require a counter offer from a legitimate negotiator.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
the partitioning wall etc
Sorry I skipped this earlier. The wall has saved Isareli lives and would not have been built had there not be
Mike Gaskey wrote:
ok, I interpret that as saying, "biased against Israel" - am I correct??
Against both Israel and Egypt. This is Inter-Arab politics. Its quite complicated here.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
This is an issue I really really do not understand. As much as I have been able to infer, Israelis have built / are builing on land the Palestinians consider to be theirs. But by the same token how do Palestinians have any greater claim on the land then does Israel, because isn't this land that Israel won during a war that was defensive and not offensive? I'm sure your realize that I'm far removed from that part of the world and have limited knowledge but this does reflect my understanding.
Before I explain that we need to look a bit more to the history of the thing. Due to a series of wars there are several historical "borders". The 1948 when Israel was first declared a state; There's the 1967 which was a result of the yom kippur war. The general stance now is that any land gained by Israel after the 1967 war is Palestinian land. Building settlement on this land is illegal and this is by UN accords and not by Arab arguments. I'm providing you with facts as opposed to feeling.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
My understanding is that there are a (huge) number of Palestinians that believe they have a claim on lands within what the majority of the rest of the world considers to be Israel plus land that is in greater dispute (ie., Israeli settlements). The desire is to repatriot all ceding land in both categories to the Palestinians. That would be sheer folly n the part of Israel as it gaurantees their nation be lost. Why is that, the idea of repatrioting, an Israeli problem? Why can't these people be resettled in land currently occupied and controlled by Palestinians??
Well, one, why were they displaced in the first place? Displacements occurred in several stages and again this coincides with each war that was fought. They do have legitimate claims regardless of the opinion of the others. If you owned land were displaced by force or fleeing imminent death, would you have a legitimate claim? But the issue is not a matter of simply moving the people back to where they were, its a matter of economics (of course), national identity and state of living. Most live in camps (and this point I argue with Oak man because you can leave
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
ok, I interpret that as saying, "biased against Israel" - am I correct??
Against both Israel and Egypt. This is Inter-Arab politics. Its quite complicated here.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
This is an issue I really really do not understand. As much as I have been able to infer, Israelis have built / are builing on land the Palestinians consider to be theirs. But by the same token how do Palestinians have any greater claim on the land then does Israel, because isn't this land that Israel won during a war that was defensive and not offensive? I'm sure your realize that I'm far removed from that part of the world and have limited knowledge but this does reflect my understanding.
Before I explain that we need to look a bit more to the history of the thing. Due to a series of wars there are several historical "borders". The 1948 when Israel was first declared a state; There's the 1967 which was a result of the yom kippur war. The general stance now is that any land gained by Israel after the 1967 war is Palestinian land. Building settlement on this land is illegal and this is by UN accords and not by Arab arguments. I'm providing you with facts as opposed to feeling.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
My understanding is that there are a (huge) number of Palestinians that believe they have a claim on lands within what the majority of the rest of the world considers to be Israel plus land that is in greater dispute (ie., Israeli settlements). The desire is to repatriot all ceding land in both categories to the Palestinians. That would be sheer folly n the part of Israel as it gaurantees their nation be lost. Why is that, the idea of repatrioting, an Israeli problem? Why can't these people be resettled in land currently occupied and controlled by Palestinians??
Well, one, why were they displaced in the first place? Displacements occurred in several stages and again this coincides with each war that was fought. They do have legitimate claims regardless of the opinion of the others. If you owned land were displaced by force or fleeing imminent death, would you have a legitimate claim? But the issue is not a matter of simply moving the people back to where they were, its a matter of economics (of course), national identity and state of living. Most live in camps (and this point I argue with Oak man because you can leave
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Yeah, it come as a shock being diagnosed with it. Bothers me what I might become, but this is one fight I refuse to lose.
I'll remember you in my prayers. My ex-wife has with MS for maybe 10 years at this point. The key for her has been finding the proper medication and reacting quickly when symptoms show. Before she retired a yer ago she was a senior executive in a very large software company so there is no reason not to be hopeful.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
OT: How'd your grand-daughter's trip to Jordan turn out?
Thanks for asking. She leaves for Jordan today. She will be staying with a family there for a few weeks and has really been looking forward to the trip. I have sympathy for the Jordanian family, she is spirited.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
bullsh*t. My simile made them feral, not dogs. But even if I did, Palestinians aren't a race. When the Lebanese pen them up in labor camps and then use their army to go in and shoot down anyone who has said he won't put up with such treatment any longer, that's not racism, either - just prejudice and savagery.
Okay - There is a bloody history between Lebanon and the palestanians due to palestinian intervention in lebanese politics. There are other reasons due to religious/cultural differences. It was a bloody civil war, something I am not proud out in my history. But I am a rational man, I recognize and learn from my mistakes. I never justify them as you seem to do.
Oakman wrote:
Playing the racism card and the minority card and the victim card in one paragraph is pretty good. I'm trying to remember if you have ever discussed the middle east without playing at least one of them.
Maybe because I am a minority and I am a victim. This is not philisophical debate. I live in Lebanon, I live in the middleeast, this is something I deeply believe in.
Bassam Saoud wrote:
Maybe because I am a minority and I am a victim
:zzz:
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
ok, I interpret that as saying, "biased against Israel" - am I correct??
Against both Israel and Egypt. This is Inter-Arab politics. Its quite complicated here.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
This is an issue I really really do not understand. As much as I have been able to infer, Israelis have built / are builing on land the Palestinians consider to be theirs. But by the same token how do Palestinians have any greater claim on the land then does Israel, because isn't this land that Israel won during a war that was defensive and not offensive? I'm sure your realize that I'm far removed from that part of the world and have limited knowledge but this does reflect my understanding.
Before I explain that we need to look a bit more to the history of the thing. Due to a series of wars there are several historical "borders". The 1948 when Israel was first declared a state; There's the 1967 which was a result of the yom kippur war. The general stance now is that any land gained by Israel after the 1967 war is Palestinian land. Building settlement on this land is illegal and this is by UN accords and not by Arab arguments. I'm providing you with facts as opposed to feeling.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
My understanding is that there are a (huge) number of Palestinians that believe they have a claim on lands within what the majority of the rest of the world considers to be Israel plus land that is in greater dispute (ie., Israeli settlements). The desire is to repatriot all ceding land in both categories to the Palestinians. That would be sheer folly n the part of Israel as it gaurantees their nation be lost. Why is that, the idea of repatrioting, an Israeli problem? Why can't these people be resettled in land currently occupied and controlled by Palestinians??
Well, one, why were they displaced in the first place? Displacements occurred in several stages and again this coincides with each war that was fought. They do have legitimate claims regardless of the opinion of the others. If you owned land were displaced by force or fleeing imminent death, would you have a legitimate claim? But the issue is not a matter of simply moving the people back to where they were, its a matter of economics (of course), national identity and state of living. Most live in camps (and this point I argue with Oak man because you can leave
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
The general stance now is that any land gained by Israel after the 1967 war is Palestinian land
When is the U.S. and Canada going to give back the land it took from the Indians after 1865?
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
this is by UN accords
That and $1.25 will get you on the subway in NYC. Where was the UN when Israel was attacked? The U.N. turned anti-Israel in the sixties and has remained in that stance ever since then. Look at the "World Conference on Racism" which was a U.N. sponsored hate-fest aimed at Israel last Feb or March. It might as well have been sponsored by Iran.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
The issue is that Jerusalem, is and always will be considered the capital of the Palestinians
Amman was supposed to be the capital of the palestinian state - according to the U.N. that you think so highly of.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
the Arab Peace Initiative first offered in 2002, then 2005
The problem with the Arab Peace initiative is that Hammas regards peace as the time to get more and better aramaments from the Syrians and Iranians.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
The best way to solve this issue is to feed the people.
First, why don't the Arab states let the Palestinians out of the gulags they keep them in? And then let Saudi Arabia feed them with some pocket change from the royal family? Why the hell should the Israelis do it?
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
Bassam Saoud wrote:
I am not sure if Mike and others got the difference between recognizing israel and recognizing Israel as a jewish state in the sense of abandoning the rights of the existing Arab population within Israel...
There is an irony in there somewhere. After all Jews and Arabs are both semitic peoples. Does not, for instance, Saudi Arabia claim to be an Arab state? And a Muslim state? If I am correct, does this mean that Jews, Christians and Swedes have no rights in that country?
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
Oakman wrote:
If I am correct, does this mean that Jews, Christians and Swedes have no rights in that country?
I'm curious about your line of thought there... :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Oakman wrote:
If I am correct, does this mean that Jews, Christians and Swedes have no rights in that country?
I'm curious about your line of thought there... :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm curious about your line of thought there
It was my understanding that the claim was being made that a state that declares itself to have an official religion, immediately denied all civil rights to members of any other faith. It was therefore argued that it might be okay to recognize Israel as having a right to exist, but not as a Jewish state. I was trying to follow this reaoning to see if it was therefore also a bad thing that other countries, like Saudi Arabia, had demanded recognition as Muslim states and if that meant that they had denied all civil rights to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. What I have found, generally speaking, that that both the Arab Muslims and the Israeli Jews have a really tough time dealing with the idea that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - or even admitting that there is a blind spot in their reasoning.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less