PDA

View Full Version : The Proof About Jews



MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 07:21 AM
Ok, so some people were more likely to click on this topic than others, but the question still remains... Political activists are attracted to jewish conspiracy threads like flies on shit. Would someone tell me why? I don't want to hear leftover propaganda from WWII, it makes me sleepy. Can anyone tell me a real life story wherein you were conspired against or suffered at the hands of a jewish person? I'm sure some members will respond with fabrications, but the good members will be taken seriously. Anyway, if these people, whom Hitler described as "having no culture of their own but always stealing the cultures of the host nations where they have assimilated" are so boring, then why after all these years do they receive so much attention? If they are so pathetic that they don't even have a culture, why is thread after thread filled with incoherent ramblings about these "boring people"? Seems to me they are nearly as boring as some would have you to believe. Opinions welcome, as usual.

Edit:Just for the record, I'm Jewish, I don't mention it that often because racial/religious labels don't appeal to me. Also, it tends to start sh*t because of all the paranoia that surrounds this topic.

Billy_Dean
10-24-2003, 07:45 AM
Money men control the world, who controls the money?

Jews first with jews, always.

Look at this reference from the Magna Carta, from 1215 ...

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

That should do for now, I don't want to put all my rotten eggs in one basket.




:)

protak
10-24-2003, 07:47 AM
First of all do not classify me as some people.
Second, I have worked on many Jewis peoples houses.
Third, I Don't know you, DON'T care, but you must remember one thing, Jew's whether you or anyone else like it, are GOD'S people. They are simple fact's, dated...blah blah .... Why in construction do so many people hate wop's???

MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 07:53 AM
it's a little ironic that you(billy) replied first because i was halfway expecting the most virulent anti-jewish people to boycott this thread, after all, responding only proves my implications are true. Nevermind that though, good point. So far here is the first fact:
1-jews are good with money, or something like that, and because of that, some people believe they control the world through the control of money.

maybe some will say "hey that ain't a fact!" .....ok those people should modify and change #1 as needed and add their own if neccessary
~
I'm trying to be objective here.
~
One thing crosses my mind though. Weapons. Militia. Are these controlled by Jews?

brotherdoobie
10-24-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@24 October 2003 - 02:45
Money men control the world, who controls the money?

Jews first with jews, always.

Look at this reference from the Magna Carta, from 1215 ...

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

That should do for now, I don't want to put all my rotten eggs in one basket.




:)
Please explain your point?



Peace brotherdoobie

protak
10-24-2003, 08:06 AM
Paronoia????
Where does Irael get there weapon's??
I'm only guessing here, but I suppose there's no violence in Isreal?
And if you are Jewis, you should/or do understand what the bible describes??
Peace brother, and don't let other's let you stray...... ;)

protak
10-24-2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@24 October 2003 - 07:45
Money men control the world, who controls the money?

Jews first with jews, always.

Look at this reference from the Magna Carta, from 1215 ...

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

That should do for now, I don't want to put all my rotten eggs in one basket.




:)
Provide that source Billy Dean!!!!
Or was that one of your magna com lada sources??? :P

MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 08:12 AM
@protak-this is likely to be a long thread, just wait a while, i think you are misinterpreting my meaning. I'm not accusing, actually I'm looking for real life examples of people who were conspired against or have suffered at the hands of jews. I don't think it really exists, or at least not in the way society would have you to believe. So far, no one has been able to produce any stories, not even a made up one(and that IS surprising).

Billy_Dean
10-24-2003, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by protak@24 October 2003 - 17:11
Provide that source Billy Dean!!!!
Or was that one of your magna com lada sources??? :P
Magna Carta. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magna.htm)

There ya go Tim.

If it were true that Jews controlled the worlds money, they would have made decisions that would be effecting everyone. This would then be a real life example

PS. ... virulent anti-jewish ... Moi?


:)

protak
10-24-2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@24 October 2003 - 08:12
@protak-this is likely to be a long thread, just wait a while, i think you are misinterpreting my meaning. I'm not accusing, actually I'm looking for real life examples of people who were conspired against or have suffered at the hands of jews. I don't think it really exists, or at least not in the way society would have you to believe. So far, no one has been able to produce any stories, not even a made up one(and that IS surprising).
Mediaslayer!!! :D I'm not defending nor offfending, anyone so far in the thread. (so far!!!!)
I have'nt mis-understood you at all, I am speaking on my belief's. If someone would like to challenge them, so be it, that is what a thread or discussion is all about.
Peace,
Tim

MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@24 October 2003 - 08:24

If it were true that Jews controlled the worlds money, they would have made decisions that would be effecting everyone.  This would then be a real life example


I see your point, but you can't prove or disprove something on so large a scale as that, which is why i asked for real life examples wherein details could be given by the person replying. After all, in this day and age guns don't kill people, ideologies kill people. :( If a powerful rumour got started that Australians were out to destroy the world, you would be rushing to find your "i was born in England" papers, now wouldn't you?

protak
10-24-2003, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+24 October 2003 - 08:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 24 October 2003 - 08:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-protak@24 October 2003 - 17:11
Provide that source Billy Dean&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Or was that one of your magna com lada sources??? :P
Magna Carta. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magna.htm)

There ya go Tim.

If it were true that Jews controlled the worlds money, they would have made decisions that would be effecting everyone. This would then be a real life example

PS. ... virulent anti-jewish ... Moi?


:) [/b][/quote]
OK Billy&#33;&#33;&#33; YOU drudged it up. First I could not stomach the first chapter. Archhole, archenemy, architect..blah blah .. This is not Princess Diana&#39;s funeral, what you appeared to be referring to ( again did&#39;nt read it no interest ) was the Catholic Church??? This discussion is on Jewish wrongdoing&#39;s.? I will :D try to swallow your mis-representation and post a reply. <_<

Billy_Dean
10-24-2003, 09:05 AM
OK Billy&#33;&#33;&#33; YOU drudged it up. First I could not stomach the first chapter. Archhole, archenemy, architect..blah blah .. This is not Princess Diana&#39;s funeral, what you appeared to be referring to ( again did&#39;nt read it no interest ) was the Catholic Church??? This discussion is on Jewish wrongdoing&#39;s.? I will :D&nbsp; try to swallow your mis-representation and post a reply. <_<

Ah, Tim, you didn&#39;t do British history at school then?

Mag·na Car·ta or Mag·na Char·ta

1. The charter of English political and civil liberties granted by King John at Runnymede in June 1215.


MS, tell me who does control the world&#39;s money supply?


:)

MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 09:19 AM
To be honest, I&#39;m still digesting your Magna Carta reference. So far it seems that "separation of church and state" doesn&#39;t really exist like I imagined it does in your government(english, not australian).

ilw
10-24-2003, 09:32 AM
The Magna Carta shouldn&#39;t really be taken out of context, it was drawn up at a time (800 years ago) when financial worries and hardships were rampant, also at a time when judo-christian relations weren&#39;t as good as nowadays and the words racism and prejudice weren&#39;t in many peoples vocabulary. Go some centuries later and i&#39;m sure you can find legal documentation that will say derogotary things about blacks, asians or native americans.
I think there has long been a tradition for Jews to be merchants and bankers and while this may have given them some power and cause strife & dislike, I don&#39;t think this is the main reason that they have been persecuted through history. I think it has more to do with the nepotism, aloofness and cliqueness that was and to a certain extent still is associated with the religion. Jewish people seem to take pride in their strong sense of community and do their best to help one another naturally this is sometimes to the detriment of those not in the community. The jewish religion is to a large extent a closed religion, marrying someone (or having a relationship) outside of the religion is frowned upon and afaik converting to Judaism isn&#39;t open to anyone. Throw in the fact that jewish people believe that they are god&#39;s chosen people and the friction that ensues seems the logical conclusion. All in all their religion makes them an easy scapegoat.
Due to their history there may be a large number of jewish people involved in banking and i am aware that banks wield significant power, but to suggest that they secretly meet up and arrange world politics seems to fall on the side of paranoia. Either way i&#39;m not worried about it, there are laws now about nepotism and discrimination, and also imo religions are on the way out, contentment, freedom, tolerance and greater scientific understanding are slowly but surely killing all the religions (in the west at least). Imo the best way to strengthen peoples faith in a religion and make their sense of community stronger (and therefore strengthen the religion) is to persecute that religion or single it out.

3RA1N1AC
10-24-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@23 October 2003 - 23:53
So far here is the first fact:
1-jews are good with money
2-jews are good at comedy. just look at the entertainment industry-- most of the great comedians are jewish, and the rest are black.

i&#39;ve got problems with zionism/Israel, but that&#39;s not an anti-semitic thing. i just think the Palestinians got a raw deal.

otherwise, jews are okay by me.

Billy_Dean
10-24-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by ilw@24 October 2003 - 18:32
Hi, sweetie. ;)
Hi.


:)

MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by ilw@24 October 2003 - 09:32
I think it has more to do with the nepotism, aloofness and cliqueness that was and to a certain extent still is associated with the religion.
Ok now we have fact #2-the followers of the jewish religion, tend to be a closed group who "stick together"

Fair enough, but I would like to add something that perhaps you overlooked. Do you know what world jewish population is? Its hoovering at like 1%. If the "anglo-saxon" peoples had a population so small as that, would they "stick together" and favor each other in everyday life over others? You bet. Tell me no with a straight face :)

ilw
10-24-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@24 October 2003 - 10:40
Hi muffin


:)
soo..... what u wearing?

AussieSheila
10-24-2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by ilw@24 October 2003 - 19:32
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
cliqueness
:) I don&#39;t think that&#39;s a word. Did you mean cliquishness?

B)

:angry: BILLY_DEAN&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;??????

MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 09:54 AM
I think its time someone sit you down and have the "pedantic" talk with you :P :P ;) ;) :P :lol:

ilw
10-24-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@24 October 2003 - 10:41
Fair enough, but I would like to add something that perhaps you overlooked.&nbsp; Do you know what world jewish population is?&nbsp; Its hoovering at like 1%.&nbsp; If the "anglo-saxon" peoples had a population so small as that, would they "stick together" and favor each other in everyday life over others?&nbsp; You bet.&nbsp; Tell me no with a straight face :)
Apparently its more like 0.25%, if it were only permissible for me to have sex with 0.125% of the population (and it will be a lot lower than this in various areas of the world) then yes i supppose i would be cliquey and I think i would also be much more amenable to the idea of marriage outside the religion. I might even be concerned about in-breeding. But I think the point is that Judaism has encouraged excessive favouritism and has been too internally focussed for centuries.

@Aussie Sheila: touche

Billy_Dean
10-24-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by ilw@24 October 2003 - 18:42
I missed you, soo..... what u wearing?
That little polkadot number you bought me for my birthday.


:)

AussieSheila
10-24-2003, 09:57 AM
:) I have you to thank mediaslayer.

So useful.

B)

:( Billy Dean??????

ilw
10-24-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+24 October 2003 - 10:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 24 October 2003 - 10:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@24 October 2003 - 18:42
I missed you, soo..... what u wearing?
I&#39;m scampering around butt naked except for a gimp mask

:) [/b][/quote]
you are a kinky little thing aren&#39;t you

AussieSheila
10-24-2003, 10:02 AM
@ilw :ph34r: &#39;Touche&#39; Billy Dean and you&#39;re in trouble.

http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/whack.gif

MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by ilw@24 October 2003 - 09:54
Apparently its more like 0.25%
Sorry for the bad statistic, but I don&#39;t think it really matters, and besides those surveys aren&#39;t scientifically accurate anyway. Just out of curiosity, how would you propose they become more open to the rest of society? Its kinda hard to welcome outsiders while fighting off attacks from all sides, no?

protak
10-24-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@24 October 2003 - 09:05

OK Billy&#33;&#33;&#33; YOU drudged it up. First I could not stomach the first chapter. Archhole, archenemy, architect..blah blah .. This is not Princess Diana&#39;s funeral, what you appeared to be referring to ( again did&#39;nt read it no interest ) was the Catholic Church??? This discussion is on Jewish wrongdoing&#39;s.? I will :D try to swallow your mis-representation and post a reply. <_<

Ah, Tim, you didn&#39;t do British history at school then?

Mag·na Car·ta or Mag·na Char·ta

1. The charter of English political and civil liberties granted by King John at Runnymede in June 1215.


MS, tell me who does control the world&#39;s money supply?


:)
Ah Billy still livin in the Mag-na world?? That&#39;s cool, to each his own&#33;&#33; :o
And please do not preach history to me, that&#39;s far beyond this conversation. :blink:

ilw
10-24-2003, 10:11 AM
besides those surveys are scientifically accurate anyway. Just out of curiosity, how would you propose they become more open to the rest of society? Its kinda hard to welcome outsiders while fighting off attacks from all sides, no?
Damn those scientifically accurate surveys.
Well theres nothing I can suggest that wouldn&#39;t go against your religion. Cliquishness (thanks AS) is a result of various religious laws as is the nepotism. Being attacked on all sides at the moment is a result of geography and the high value you place on objectively worthless religious land.

protak
10-24-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@24 October 2003 - 09:54
I think its time someone sit you down and have the "pedantic" talk with you :P :P ;) ;) :P :lol:
Mediaman&#33;don&#39;t patrionize the guest&#39;s.
pedantic
narrow, often, ostentatious concern for learning Word&#39;s get you no where, fact&#39;s will do wonder&#39;s. :huh:

AussieSheila
10-24-2003, 10:25 AM
;) It&#39;s ok, Tim, he&#39;s not being patronizing, he inadvertantly turned me on to the online dictionary.

:wub: How YOU Doin&#39; Tim?

B)

protak
10-24-2003, 10:28 AM
Mediaslayer I&#39;m not against you but some of the comment&#39;s???
Gun&#39;s don&#39;t kill people, ideoligies kill people F8ck dude&#33;&#33;&#33; To think of killing a person is an ideoligy. Begin&#39;s with an idea, end&#39;s with a gun??

protak
10-24-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by AussieSheila@24 October 2003 - 10:25
;) It&#39;s ok, Tim, he&#39;s not being patronizing, he inadvertantly turned me on to the online dictionary.

:wub: How YOU Doin&#39; Tim?

B)
Hey me little cuttie&#33;&#33;&#33; :flowers: How are ya? :D Get my PM? and that&#39;s not pre-menstrual.... :P How&#39;s the farkin gang? Gotta stop bye for a nip... :beerchug:
Well she&#39;s rolin on 6:00am no sleep yet ,gotta work tomorrow, bark at you guy&#39;s later.... :lol: Oh hug&#39;s and kisses to ya Andie... :flowers: Tim

AussieSheila
10-24-2003, 12:11 PM
:wub: Hey Tim, yes I got your pm&#39;s. The gang is great, looking forward to an opening party, we&#39;ll let you know when. Stay cool, babe.

B) Andie

Hugs & kisses back at ya&#33;
xoxoxox

j2k4
10-24-2003, 03:47 PM
From a standpoint of sheer speculation, some might term the Magna Carta an exemplar of "early anti-semitism".

I think there must be a way to discuss the issue absent the constant extremist rhetoric, but such would seem to be the product of a fortuitous turn of events and participants rather than a conscious choice to do so.

I&#39;ll keep my eyes open for such an opportunity. ;)

Billy_Dean
10-24-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 October 2003 - 00:47
I&#39;ll keep my eyes open for such an opportunity. ;)
Keep your eyes open, by all means j2, but don&#39;t hold your breath, we&#39;d all miss you.


:)

Rat Faced
10-24-2003, 04:18 PM
Guns dont kill people, bullets do......



I think that the reason that the "Jewish Conspiracy" theories abound at the moment comes down to Israel, pure and simple.

By no means is the jewish nation/religion plotting to take over the world. Like everyone else they think of their families and personal stuff, just like everyone else. Just like everyone else, they have other interests too.

One of the other interests is, of course, Israel; for a significant number of them, i think you&#39;ll agree.

Now I think you&#39;ll also agree....


Due to their history, certain families have got a lot of finance available (this may or may not be a "Controlling" amount in that sector, I suspect not though).

Certain families have control over certain media groups.

Finally, other families have influence/control over trade groups, whether manufacturing or Retail/Wholesale.


When all this influence is brought to bear on defending Israel, then what people can see is:

1/ The Media, in general, gives an Israeli slant.

This isnt just becouse of their direct influence by certain families owning a lot of the stations/papers; its also because the other stations, in general, rely on the Retalers/Wholesalers to "Advertise", and on Financial Institutions to Fund expansions/ not forclose etc etc.

Even if their has been no threat to withdraw advertising, its always going to be in the back of the minds of the executives in charge of the Media.


2/ The Trade Groups/Financial mongols have a lot of money, with which they can directly Lobby government.

Everyone else is free to do this too, however the amount of money that the Jewish Lobby can throw around, compared to say..Palestinan?... well, guess who is seen to be lobbying ;)

In addition, as you have said yourself, the Jewish "Nation" help each other directly; much as the Indians, Pakistani&#39;s, Masons...(hell you name them all) do.

You therefore find that Israel sometimes gets huge discounts on some of their imports (arms included), in addition to "Aid" by the other western governments due to the lobbying/public opinion due to media slant.


In conclusion:

There is no jewish "Conspiracy" and never was.

However, due to the accumulation of apparent "co-incidence" (its not, just lots Jews working independantly, to do what is natural and help Israel), i can understand why some paranoid people think that they see one.

I can also see why some out and out Troublemakers take advantage of these unfortunates.

Jewish people, like everyone else: wake up, go to work, eat and shit, go to sleep; just like everyone else in the world, including Pallestinians. ;)

billyfridge
10-24-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 October 2003 - 16:18


Jewish people, like everyone else: wake up, go to work, eat and shit, go to sleep; just like everyone else in the world, including Pallestinians. ;)
I wonder what Isreal would do if refugees, illegal immigrants, etc started sneaking
into the country, asking, no, demanding asylum, free food, housing, jobs, etc, etc,
Would they say &#39;&#39;no you&#39;re not Jewish&#39;&#39; or would they let them in like our stupid politically correct European polititions. i don&#39;t think so. <_<

Rat Faced
10-24-2003, 06:13 PM
I thought everyone knew their Rufugee Policy (http://www.eclipsereview.org/issue8/refugees.htm)

Which is direct contravention of UN Resolution 194 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/palindx4.htm)

:blink: :unsure: ;)

billyfridge
10-24-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 October 2003 - 18:13
I thought everyone knew their Rufugee Policy (http://www.eclipsereview.org/issue8/refugees.htm)

Which is direct contravention of UN Resolution 194 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/palindx4.htm)

:blink: :unsure: ;)
That proves Jews only look after Jews. Would there be a case for &#39;&#39;inbreeding&#39;&#39; ?
or &#39;We&#39;re alright Jacob, f--k the rest. :rolleyes:

Rat Faced
10-24-2003, 07:00 PM
No....it says a lot about Israel and its governments, not Jews.

J'Pol
10-24-2003, 08:35 PM
It&#39;s Friday night where I am. I can&#39;t be bothered ploughing through everything, so I have read the first page and jumped ahead. Sorry, but at least I admit it.

If the Jewish people control all of the money, then I assume the oil wells in the middle East are controlled by the Jews. Since they generate a shed load of serious money.

I assume the Aga Khan is Jewish, he is a seriously wealthy man.The people who control Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran etc - all Jewish. All of the oil billionaire Arab Princes, Jewish.

MediaSlayer
10-24-2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by ilw@24 October 2003 - 10:11
Well theres nothing I can suggest that wouldn&#39;t go against your religion. Cliquishness (thanks AS) is a result of various religious laws as is the nepotism.
ilw, I should have mentioned before, I&#39;m not orthodox. Most Jews aren&#39;t, and you can quote me on that. The orthodox are a minority within a minority. I don&#39;t have any statistics off hand, but I know their numbers are under a majority(<50%) of the general jewish population. The laws that you are refering to that make it difficult for Jews to interact with non-jews don&#39;t really apply to the majority of jews, besides a few exceptions, mostly with conservative jews. So what I&#39;m saying is the generalized awkwardness that Jews feel when trying to interact with non-jews and the suspicion and awkwardness that non-Jews feel when trying to interact with Jews is some product of society.


Being attacked on all sides at the moment is a result of geography and the high value you place on objectively worthless religious land.

I didn&#39;t mean it literally. Now that it has been mentioned though, is that land "objectively worthless" when compared to the surrounding countries? Even the arabs want it becomes of Mohammed.

@Ratfaced-maybe you missed the Fox News Channel thread and the link I gave there. At any rate, I have only one question, "Even if there was a "jewish slant" to the media, would it last forever?"

Rat Faced
10-24-2003, 09:47 PM
Media Slayer...I didnt say a "Jewish Slant", I said an Israeli slant.

I really must be assertive in, what I agree, may sound like semantics.

The reason being...

The way Israel has been settled etc.....

It started off with Freedom Fighters, followed by an influx of displaced Jews, and a couple of wars to harden attitudes of the people there.

Since then, mainly Orthodox/Ultra Orthodox Jews have emmigrated there.

This means that the whole way the creation and settlement of Israel has come about means that the country is basically controlled by Right Wing/Religious people.

This is not a problem that would only have happened to Jews...

Any country settled in this way, by any religion, I suspect would be just as bad.


I really cant think of an example that would fit, to describe the way i feel.

However if Christians and Jews (as an example) were reversed, and it was Christians that had been butchered in the Hollocaust, given "The Holy Land", had to fight the wars with the neighbours, and then most emmigrants had been Fundamentalist Christians.... Im sure the politics of the region would be similar.


As to "will it last forever"...... I suspect, sadly, that it may last for the rest of my lifetime. The Israeli&#39;s would have to give up more than they are willing to (back to 1967 Borders), and not all Pallestinians will rest at that (although thats all 99% of them want).

I&#39;ve said before, both peoples deserve to live in peace, and i believe they both want this (the majority).....however, until the Far Right/Religion stops controlling the policies in Israel, there will be no peace there...I mean, they are still settling the land that is in dispute. The more that is settled, the less likely it is to happen, and even though the PLO denounced Terrorism in the mid 70s, and has as the Pallestinian Authority....people still shout "Terrorist" at them. Hamas are, and a few other groups....but not them, at least not for a long time, all this achieves is to undermine the main Pallestinian group that wants peace and recognises Israels right to exist...dont figure.

I think that Israel will leave it too long, Palestinian Authority loses all control of the Pallestinians (they are close to that already), and Sharon will create the "Greater Israel" he&#39;s been after all his life..... I think this will be make the last 50 years look like kindergarten. :(


I have to admit that if I was around at the time of the creation of Israel, I would have been against it&#39;s creation. This trouble was always on the horizon, even then...taking someone elses land and "Giving It" to someone else is wrong, pure and simple, they are gonna be upset.

By the same token however, Israel does exist now, and 90%+ of the people there had nothing to do with the creation of the country. They were born there, they moved there etc etc etc. No one has the right to take Israel away now, it has as much right to exist as anyone else...

The Palestinians have recognised this, however the current Government there does not recognise the Palestinians rights.

J'Pol
10-24-2003, 10:12 PM
Since this thread is comfortable with history let&#39;s mention the Norman Conquests. That had a fairly dramatic effect on England and Ireland.

Ask the native Americans what happened to their lands. Or the Australians. Or the New Zealanders. Or the South Africans

The partitioning of Ireland didn&#39;t go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.

History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.

I don&#39;t see how this type of evidence supports the Jewish Conspiracy Theorists.

billyfridge
10-24-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 October 2003 - 19:00
No....it says a lot about Israel and its governments, not Jews.
I fail to see the difference. What is the correct way to address the people of Israel?
you call British a Brit, i don&#39;t mind, do the Americans not like being called Yanks
i don&#39;t know i have not known an american personally. i&#39;m not taking the piss here i really don&#39;t know. :( :blink:

Rat Faced
10-24-2003, 11:40 PM
Not all Jews are Israeli&#39;s... just like not all Christians are Yanks or Brits.

I would have thought the difference between a Religion and a Nationality self evident.

JPaul,

Im not trying to "support" Jewish Conspiracy theorists....I have already said there is no such thing :blink:

I also said that the way the country was settled, it doesnt matter what Religion....there would have been a similar political climate.

Keep up dear chap :P

billyfridge
10-24-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 October 2003 - 23:40
Not all Jews are Israeli&#39;s... just like not all Christians are Yanks or Brits.

I would have thought the difference between a Religion and a Nationality self evident.

JPaul,

Im not trying to "support" Jewish Conspiracy theorists....I have already said there is no such thing :blink:

I also said that the way the country was settled, it doesnt matter what Religion....there would have been a similar political climate.

Keep up dear chap :P
Don&#39;t u know i&#39;m a thick Brit trying to keep up with u clever ppl&#39;s :D

Biggles
10-24-2003, 11:59 PM
The concept of a Zionist conspiracy was being discussed in the thread dealing with the comments by the Malaysian President. However, it seems to have drifted over here.

There seems little point in repeating what I said in the other thread but I was intrigued by the references to the Magna Carta.

Jews are indeed heavily involved in banking and the historical figure of the Jew, be it in Walter Scotts Ivanhoe or Shakespere&#39;s Merchant of Venice, is usually a negative connotation. The reason for this is simple. Money lending with interest is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (in fact it is mentioned more times than most of the other dos and don&#39;ts put together - which is rather interesting considering much of modern capitalism is based purely on interest earned). Jews are not allowed to lend to other Jews and Christians could not lend to other Christians. However, it was all right to lend with interest to unbelievers. Christian to Jew and vice versa. Jews were the bankers of medieval Europe and one never likes those one owes money to. One of the best ways of dealing with mounting debts was to have a purge and throw all the Jews out of a region - being a banker in medieval times was a dangerous business. Because Jews were not Christian they were barred from most trades and crafts and only had a few lines of business open to them. Banker, a prestigious job today, was vile and un-Christian in medieval times and therefore open to Jews.

Consequently, Rat Face is absolutely right, there never was a conspiracy.

The mistakes of the current Israeli cabinet represent just that - the mistakes of the current administration. The majority of the Israeli population are decent people who earnestly would like to see the illegal settlements removed and a lasting peace with their neighbours. A surprisingly large number of Palestinians would settle happily for the same. At the moment, however, it those who believe in the sword who hold these majorities in their thrall.

MediaSlayer
10-25-2003, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 October 2003 - 21:47
Media Slayer...I didnt say a "Jewish Slant", I said an Israeli slant.

I really must be assertive in, what I agree, may sound like semantics.

The reason being...

The way Israel has been settled etc.....

It started off with Freedom Fighters, followed by an influx of displaced Jews, and a couple of wars to harden attitudes of the people there.

Since then, mainly Orthodox/Ultra Orthodox Jews have emmigrated there.


Do you realize that the majority of Israelis are Jewish? In other words, if a person is born in England but moves to America, does that person lose his "Englishness"? After a while, I&#39;m guessing the person would, but all that time inbetween I would still classify that person as English. Let&#39;s not forget, Ratfaced, modern day Israel is not hundreds of years old. There are many new immigrants in Israel who were "Jewish" in their homeland. So when they move to Israel, does that make them "Israeli"? After a while, yes, but please remember it is a fairly new nation. So what I&#39;m getting at is this: to say the media has a "Israeli" slant is nearly the same as saying the media has a "Jewish" slant. It&#39;s not as if the nation of Israel was created by rebellious Jews who didn&#39;t like the Judiasm of their home countries. It was founded to keep the Jewish traditions alive in a place where they wouldn&#39;t be bothered, which mostly wasn&#39;t worked so far :( . There are differences between "non-Israeli" Jews and Israeli Jews, but they are mostly irrelevant to a discussion about any media slant. While we&#39;re on the subject though, I would like to point out that whoever told you that its mostly orthodox Jews settling in Israel is wrong. As luck would have it, Israel is fairly secular. Often, Jews who were very observant in their home countries drop some ways and traditions when they move to Israel, resulting in a general drift towards being non-observant, secular Jews.
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn&#39;t that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole. There is only "claiming" of land, not true ownership. If Russia took all the British Isles, you would no longer "own" that land, no matter what a piece of paper says.

MediaSlayer
10-25-2003, 07:00 AM
@Ratfaced-I forgot to add this:
It&#39;s hard to define what the word "Jew" means because the meaning has changed over the centuries. Mostly it refers to an identity, which covers more area than a nationality or race.

Rat Faced
10-25-2003, 01:32 PM
I would not call any country that gives Judicial Power to a religious court...secular.

It takes a lot to emmigrate to another country..to emmigrate to a war zone takes real belief in what your doing. I stand by what i say regarding Israeli settlers, however i can also see that children born there, or indeed that emmigrate there, do not necessarily have their parents beliefs.

Also, a country who&#39;s Labour Party is more to the Right than Thatcher was (or Reagan) can only be classed as Right Wing.

The choice up until now has been between conservatism and outright facism...sorry.


I hope you can now see why i try and differentiate between "Jew" and "Israeli". I am aware that most of Israel is Jewish. However most of both UK and Italy are Christian....this does not mean that they share the same beliefs or political views.

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Mediaslayer
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn&#39;t that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole.

NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;


:angry:

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 16:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mediaslayer
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn&#39;t that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole.

NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;


:angry: [/b][/quote]
Your date for vacating Australia would be when ?

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
10-25-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 15:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mediaslayer
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn&#39;t that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole.

NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;


:angry: [/b][/quote]
:o :ph34r: :unsure: :ph34r:

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 03:25 PM
Are you saying things that happened 200 years ago justify events of today?

When you lot occupied Australia there were 250 hanging offences in Britain, you&#39;ve changed since then, Israel hasn&#39;t. At least 200 years ago people were charged with an offence first, not murdered in cold blood on the assumption they were guilty.

It&#39;s time Israel were dragged, screaming if necessary, into the 21st century.


:angry:

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 16:25
Are you saying things that happened 200 years ago justify events of today?

When you lot occupied Australia there were 250 hanging offences in Britain, you&#39;ve changed since then, Israel hasn&#39;t. At least 200 years ago people were charged with an offence first, not murdered in cold blood on the assumption they were guilty.

It&#39;s time Israel were dragged, screaming if necessary, into the 21st century.


:angry:
I never occupied anywhere, at that time all of my family were Irish, living in Ireland. We moved to Scotland 2 generations ago.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not say you were English by birth. So it would have been you, or your people, not I, or mine who did it.

Are you telling me the native Australian people were afforded proper rights when their lands were taken from them. It&#39;s been going on for longer than that, it didn&#39;t happen all in one day.

What about the native South African people are the whites leaving there now, that&#39;s good news. I wasn&#39;t informed.

I did not suggest that those events justify what happens today. I don&#39;t see how even your twisted logic could take that meaning.

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 03:52 PM
I never occupied anywhere, at that time all of my family were Irish, living in Ireland. We moved to Scotland 2 generations ago.

Excuse me? Wasn&#39;t Ireland part of Britain 200 years ago?

As for the legality or otherwise of your lot&#39;s occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.

Do you declare a certain slant towards Israel on the question of the continuing illegal settlement of Palestinian land?



:huh:

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
10-25-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 15:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mediaslayer
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn&#39;t that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole.

[/b][/quote]
JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land?
He did not say that &#33;

He said this....

The partitioning of Ireland didn&#39;t go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.

Biggles
10-25-2003, 04:26 PM
Apologies for not keeping up, but what exactly is the thrust of the argument here? :blink: :blink:

The issue regarding land is a crucial one but it is a political hot potato all round the world. Whether Israel should or should not have been founded is a perhaps an interesting point but it is not going to change the fact that it does exist - anymore than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US or any other settled territories are liable to suddenly disappear.

The key, then, must be, what is a workable peace and an acceptable compensation to those who lose out? This is only beginning to be addressed in all of the territories mentioned above and it will continue to test the political ingenuity of those in the ME for years to come. In the meantime those who think they can steal a march through gun and bomb are running loose.

Sharron&#39;s get tough philosophy has resulted in a far worse security situation for ordinary Israelis than anything that went before. The situation is therefore largely one of incompetent politics than some pan global conspiracy. That is not to say the far right in Israel do not have an agenda - just that it is not shared by the majority of Israelis.

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 16:52

I never occupied anywhere, at that time all of my family were Irish, living in Ireland. We moved to Scotland 2 generations ago.

Excuse me? Wasn&#39;t Ireland part of Britain 200 years ago?

As for the legality or otherwise of your lot&#39;s occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.

Do you declare a certain slant towards Israel on the question of the continuing illegal settlement of Palestinian land?



:huh:
I have no slant either way. As I have said elsewhere untill people agree that compromise is the only way forward there can be no progress towards peace. I use Ireland as an example of this, because there has been progress. Like I said 2 steps forward and 1 step back, but that still works out as forward motion.

Things like you said earlier :

NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;

are exactly the type of words which are so unhelpfull. This is the ideal way to ensure that people become even more entrenched.

You persist with using the phrase, "your lot&#39;s" I take it from this that you were not born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I had thought you previously stated this.

Where are you actually from then.

Edit - sorry meant to mention the terra nullis nonsense. The land was "declared unoccupied" in spite of the fact that their was a whole culture already living there.

"This manifestly false proposition was identified as such by the High Court of Australia in the landmark judgment in Mabo case in 1992 and the concept of terra nullis was held to be of no application given the truth that the land was occupied by at least 750.000 people [and possibly many more] organized into tribal and family communities scattered throughout the continent and maintaining a strong spiritual relationship with the land."

Do you have a particular slant with regard to the natives in your adopted land.

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Biggles
That is not to say the far right in Israel do not have an agenda - just that it is not shared by the majority of Israelis.

I fail to see how you can say that, the people of Israel consistently elect right wing governments with the same "no deal" attitude towards Palestine. If you want peace, vote for it&#33;

@ JP: I am Australian, hence you lot and us lot.


:)

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 17:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
That is not to say the far right in Israel do not have an agenda - just that it is not shared by the majority of Israelis.

I fail to see how you can say that, the people of Israel consistently elect right wing governments with the same "no deal" attitude towards Palestine. If you want peace, vote for it&#33;

@ JP: I am Australian, hence you lot and us lot.


:) [/b][/quote]
Where were you born Billy, I had thought you said you were born in England and moved to Australia. Sorry if I picked that up wrong.

Either way, when are you leaving. Or do you intend keeping these people&#39;s land from them.

Or do they not have any rights. The Australians Courts have accepted that terra nullis is nonsense. So any claim on the land is untenable.

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 05:47 PM
I ask you again JP: Are you claiming events of hundreds of years ago justify the Israeli actions, vis-a-vis the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land?

Legal Status: The Israeli settlement system is illegal under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, of which Israel is a signatory party, prohibits in all cases the transfer of parts of the civilian population of the occupying Power into the territory it occupies. The Convention, as well as the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annexed Regulations of 1907, which together constitute customary international law, prohibit the destruction, seizure and confiscation of private or public properties in occupied territories (except when absolutely necessary for military reasons).

The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has been asserted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by United Nations organs and agencies, as well as by every country in the world. The United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in twenty-four resolutions. The Council has specifically dealt with the issue of settlements, established a Commission in this regard and considers settlements to be illegal and an obstacle to peace. In addition, the Council has called for the cessation of all settlement activities and the dismantling of the existing ones. The Council has also repeatedly declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the demographic composition, physical character, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are null and void and have no legal validity (e.g. resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980)).

I eagerly await your reply.

PS. Fu*king Fulham beat Man U 3- 1&#33; What right do they think they have to inflict that on the greatest team on Earth?



:)

hobbes
10-25-2003, 05:51 PM
http://partners.permissioninteractive.com/corporate/images/tap-dance.jpg

Whole lotta tap dancin&#39; going on.

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 18:47
I ask you again JP: Are you claiming events of hundreds of years ago justify the Israeli actions, vis-a-vis the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land?

Legal Status: The Israeli settlement system is illegal under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, of which Israel is a signatory party, prohibits in all cases the transfer of parts of the civilian population of the occupying Power into the territory it occupies. The Convention, as well as the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annexed Regulations of 1907, which together constitute customary international law, prohibit the destruction, seizure and confiscation of private or public properties in occupied territories (except when absolutely necessary for military reasons).

The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has been asserted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by United Nations organs and agencies, as well as by every country in the world. The United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in twenty-four resolutions. The Council has specifically dealt with the issue of settlements, established a Commission in this regard and considers settlements to be illegal and an obstacle to peace. In addition, the Council has called for the cessation of all settlement activities and the dismantling of the existing ones. The Council has also repeatedly declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the demographic composition, physical character, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are null and void and have no legal validity (e.g. resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980)).

I eagerly await your reply.

PS. Fu*king Fulham beat Man U 3- 1&#33; What right do they think they have to inflict that on the greatest team on Earth?



:)
Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don&#39;t think I said anywhere that it did.

I though I made my position clear, sorry if it wasn&#39;t.

Now if you could afford me the same courtesy. Where were you born and when are you leaving Australia.

I await your reply with equal eagerness.

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 06:23 PM
Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don&#39;t think I said anywhere that it did.

So why do you ask when I&#39;m leaving?


:)

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 06:38 PM
Will you answer the question, where were you born, or at the very least have the courtesy to decline to do so. I remain eager to hear your answer.

I ask when you are leaving because the land was stolen. The Australian court has diemissed your specious terra nullis argument, though I am sure you knew that already.

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 07:03 PM
How can it have been "stolen"? That&#39;s a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago. There was no international law, as there is now, no UN, and no real concept of universal human rights. There is also no suggestion of illegality on Britain&#39;s behalf. Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act. The indiginous population is not asking anyone to leave, nor claiming the whole of Australia.

As for answering your irrelevent questions, I have you to thank for that, you taught me well, I salute you.


:)

hobbes
10-25-2003, 07:12 PM
http://windom.cybox.com/photos/2002/01/bull2.jpg

Ole&#33;

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 20:03
How can it have been "stolen"? That&#39;s a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago.&nbsp; There was no international law, as there is now, no UN, and no real concept of universal human rights.&nbsp; There is also no suggestion of illegality on Britain&#39;s behalf.&nbsp; Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act.&nbsp; The indiginous population is not asking anyone to leave, nor claiming the whole of Australia.

As for answering your irrelevent questions, I have you to thank for that, you taught me well, I salute you.


:)
How can it have been "stolen"? That&#39;s a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago.

:lol: :lol: :lol: That is just ridiculous. Is your tongue sore, you must be biting it.

.... no real concept of universal human rights.

Oh that&#39;s OK then, as was slavery based on that argument.

Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act.

You used terra nullis as your original defence for the land being taken, when you said

As for the legality or otherwise of your lot&#39;s occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.

This was the worst I have ever seen from you and there has been some real garbage. Please at least try to be consistent. You use an argument to defend your position, then a few posts later describe that very defence as "incorrect".

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 07:56 PM
How can it have been "stolen"? That&#39;s a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago.

[JP] [b]That is just ridiculous. Is your tongue sore, you must be biting it.

[Me]If you wish to argue the point of legality or otherwise of an act, declared legal under British law at the time, go ahead. If they "stole" it by their understanding, why did they bother to justify it?

... no real concept of universal human rights.

[JP] [b]Oh that&#39;s OK then, as was slavery based on that argument.

[Me] My point exactly, different world, different understanding of right and wrong.

Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act.

[JP] [b]You used terra nullis as your original defence for the land being taken, when you said...

...As for the legality or otherwise of your lot&#39;s occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.

[Me] Another of your famous misrepresentations.

The land was declared terra nullis, whether you like or agree with it is irrelevant.

I find your defence of Israel&#39;s repeated violation of human rights, their murders, assasinations, land stealing and dispossesions to be abhorrant. To try to justify them by your country&#39;s actions over 200 years ago, even more so.




:)

Lamsey
10-25-2003, 08:00 PM
I don&#39;t mean to criticise, but QUOTE tags would make that a lot more easy to understand http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/headhurts.gif

j2k4
10-25-2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Lamsey@25 October 2003 - 15:00
I don&#39;t mean to criticise, but QUOTE tags would make that a lot more easy to understand http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/headhurts.gif
I agree.

Finally&#33; Something I can comment on here. :blink:

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 08:17 PM
I find your defence of Israel&#39;s repeated violation of human rights, their murders, assasinations, land stealing and dispossesions to be abhorrant. To try to justify them by your country&#39;s actions over 200 years ago, even more so.


What defence would that be Billy - show me where I did this.

I see you are back to your old way of ignoring what people actually say and just typing nonsense.

Do you forget that people can actually read what we have both posted, so I say again show me where this defence is.

Take Lamsey&#39;s suggestion and quote the post in which I do it.

Here is my most recent post in relation to this


Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don&#39;t think I said anywhere that it did.

I though I made my position clear, sorry if it wasn&#39;t.

Billy_Dean
10-25-2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@25 October 2003 - 07:12
Since this thread is comfortable with history let&#39;s mention the Norman Conquests. That had a fairly dramatic effect on England and Ireland.

Ask the native Americans what happened to their lands. Or the Australians. Or the New Zealanders. Or the South Africans

The partitioning of Ireland didn&#39;t go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.

History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.

I don&#39;t see how this type of evidence supports the Jewish Conspiracy Theorists.
This was not a defence???

What was it then?


:)

J'Pol
10-25-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 21:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@25 October 2003 - 07:12
Since this thread is comfortable with history let&#39;s mention the Norman Conquests. That had a fairly dramatic effect on England and Ireland.

Ask the native Americans what happened to their lands. Or the Australians. Or the New Zealanders. Or the South Africans

The partitioning of Ireland didn&#39;t go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.

History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.

I don&#39;t see how this type of evidence supports the Jewish Conspiracy Theorists.
This was not a defence???

What was it then?


:) [/b][/quote]
Have you run mad.

That post states that history is full of examples of people taking land from others. It mentions it happening in several places.

There is nothing in it which makes a value judgement on any of the specific examples, or indeed any one in particular.

It does not even mention the present trouble in the middle east, far less defend either side.

Biggles
10-25-2003, 09:19 PM
Billy

I said that the majority of Israelis do not support the far right agenda because I believe that to be the case.

The Israeli election system is one of proportional representation. The current government is an amalgamation of far right and centrist parties, the oppostion, likewise, a grouping of left of centre parties. The Israeli Labour party has won elections and could, if it could agree with some of the centrist parties, take control again. The far right religious parties never garner enough support to be a credible government but they frequently hold the balance when things are tight for Likud.

It would be fair to say the far right are troublesome even for the Likud party but the latter tries to keep them at least theoretically on-side as they are important in holding together the coalition and, consequently, power.

Rat Faced
10-25-2003, 10:26 PM
Although the Israeli Labour Party is the "Left" in Israel, it is still Right of Centre itself...History of Israeli Labour Party (http://i-cias.com/e.o/labour_p_i.htm)

As said earlier, its the Ultra Orthodox Right Wing that holds the "Balance of Power"....

j2k4
10-25-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 October 2003 - 17:26
Although the Israeli Labour Party is the "Left" in Israel, it is still Right of Centre itself...History of Israeli Labour Party (http://i-cias.com/e.o/labour_p_i.htm)

As said earlier, its the Ultra Orthodox Right Wing that holds the "Balance of Power"....
I would like to point out that the "center", such as it is in Israel, is NOT the same center as exists in the U.K., the U.S., or anywhere else.

I see the terms right, left and center lobbed about as if there is an Oxford definition which has universal application.

Relativity will out, just as the truth; such loose play with words and terms is dishonest, and has no place this discussion.

Biggles
10-25-2003, 10:46 PM
Rat face

Everything is relative (think Einstein said that) :rolleyes:

To J2 the Democrats are to the left - quite where that puts Tommy Sheriden I am not sure. :D

The Israeli Labour party does have significant left wing elements to its economic thinking and provision of public services. We tend, by necessity I suppose, to concentrate on the security element of any Israeli government but for Israelis this is only one element of day to day life. They need their schools, buses, hospitals etc. , just like everyone else. Whether we think the Israeli Labour party (a bit like our own at the moment) is right wing you can be quite sure the Ultra Orthodox parties can barely tolerate being in the same room as them so far removed are they from their point of view. I believe they refer to them as the Oslo traitors - amongst other things.

Biggles
10-25-2003, 10:49 PM
:D

J2

Now there is a coincidence.

Rat Faced
10-25-2003, 10:55 PM
That is hogwash j2k4.

The range is "Right" eg Facists to "Left" eg Communists.

Everything is within this global range, which is why i state that the "Left" is right of centre "In Israel"....

Without this, then people would assume that "Left" = Socialist.

Or is this what you wish people to believe? That the "Centre" there is the same as that which is Globaly recognised.

There is no "Socialist Party" in Israel, just as there is no "Socialist Party" in the USA... (or in the UK at the moment, IMHO)

note:

By "No Socialist Party", i refer to an electable party.... ie influential in the Affairs of State.

Lamsey
10-25-2003, 11:05 PM
The Scottish Socialist Party have several seats in the Scottish Parliament at the moment.

Biggles
10-25-2003, 11:07 PM
Rat Face

That would appear to be the case in England. If you cast your eyes to a Parliament a little closer to you than Westminster I think you will find the left/centre debate alive and well. If the Conservatives ever get their act together there might even be a left/centre/right debate someday.

However, I digress. :rolleyes:

Rat Faced
10-25-2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Lamsey@25 October 2003 - 23:05
The Scottish Socialist Party have several seats in the Scottish Parliament at the moment.
Touche...

Except Scotland isnt yet a "State"

:P


Just remember to re-negotiate those bloody borders when you break away.... Hadrians wall maybe?

Pwease?

On a lighter note....Political Definitions... (http://www.drunkbastard.net/regularhumor/politics.htm)

MediaSlayer
10-26-2003, 06:50 AM
well, well it looks like alot of interesting things have happened since I was on last on so I have alot of catching up to do, but this certainly caught my eye


NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;







I would have expected a more mature response from "...perhaps the oldest member on the forum..." That doesn&#39;t sound like the response of a wise person at all, but that&#39;s just my young opinion :) . I am truly disappointed in you, Billy Dean. Now, if nobody has any objections, I&#39;m gonna grab a bite to eat, come back, and slag the hell out of you&#33;

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@26 October 2003 - 15:50

NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;

I would have expected a more mature response from "...perhaps the oldest member on the forum..." That doesn&#39;t sound like the response of a wise person at all, but that&#39;s just my young opinion :) . I am truly disappointed in you, Billy Dean. Now, if nobody has any objections, I&#39;m gonna grab a bite to eat, come back, and slag the hell out of you&#33;
Do your worst&#33;

Come back and tell me the appropriation of Palestinian land was&#092;is legal. Tell me murder without trial is legal&#092;moral. I&#39;m sick and tired of all the right wing arseholes telling me it&#39;s the Palestinians who have to do this and do that, whilst condoning the state terrorism being waged on the Palestinians by Israel.

So come and slag the hell out of me, it&#39;ll be an honour.

@JP. Your "point" was -- What&#39;s the difference between what happened in other countries and what happened in Palestine. You then inferred that if they (the settlers) should get out, then I, and all other Australians&#092;Americans&#092;Canadians, etc should get out.. Or was there no point to anything you had to say? Was this then just an excuse to mount another personal attack on me?


:)

MediaSlayer
10-26-2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@25 October 2003 - 15:56

JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land?
He did not say that &#33;

He said this....

The partitioning of Ireland didn&#39;t go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward. [/quote]
he also said this

History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.


but I admit I could have been clearer about it. When I said "the strongest argument" I was talking about the concept of "claiming" or "settling" land in general, not the specific point I was making. I posted too quickly. <_<

MediaSlayer
10-26-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 October 2003 - 13:32
I would not call any country that gives Judicial Power to a religious court...secular.


Are you implying that there can&#39;t be secularism in Israel? I said this:


Israel is fairly secular.

and this:


Often, Jews who were very observant in their home countries drop some ways and traditions when they move to Israel, resulting in a general drift towards being non-observant, secular Jews.


If you read carefully, I never said "Israel is secular". There can be secularism within Israel just as there can be a "left" and "right" within the "left" or "right".

@Biggles, and to a smaller extent, RatFaced-Israel&#39;s government is incompetent? Here are two words you won&#39;t want to hear - David Kelly.

@Billy Dean-you&#39;re digging a ditch, it seems. Here we go.

How can it have been "stolen"? That&#39;s a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago. There was no international law, as there is now, no UN, and no real concept of universal human rights. There is also no suggestion of illegality on Britain&#39;s behalf. Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act. The indiginous population is not asking anyone to leave, nor claiming the whole of Australia.

As for answering your irrelevent questions, I have you to thank for that, you taught me well, I salute you.


Terra nullis was found to be incorrect. You admit this. So what steps are you taking to give back the land to the native people that were there before you? I want to introduce you to my good friend, hypocrisy. You two are sure to get along well together.

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
10-26-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@26 October 2003 - 08:56


JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land?
He did not say that &#33;

He said this....

The partitioning of Ireland didn&#39;t go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.
he also said this

History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.


but I admit I could have been clearer about it. When I said "the strongest argument" I was talking about the concept of "claiming" or "settling" land in general, not the specific point I was making. I posted too quickly. <_< [/quote]
.....ok ;)

MediaSlayer
10-26-2003, 10:33 AM
coco, it&#39;s cool. I&#39;m sooo sleepy, and by the time I wake up again there will probably be too many posts to respond to again. Oh well, I&#39;m off.

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@26 October 2003 - 09:10


@JP. Your "point" was -- What&#39;s the difference between what happened in other countries and what happened in Palestine. You then inferred that if they (the settlers) should get out, then I, and all other Australians&#092;Americans&#092;Canadians, etc should get out.. Or was there no point to anything you had to say? Was this then just an excuse to mount another personal attack on me?


:)
:lol: :lol: :lol:

That&#39;s right Billy it&#39;s a conspiracy, against you.

You seem to be the only person who has this much difficulty understanding other people, when you have no reasonable response to their point.

Either that or you perhaps chose to mis-understand when it suits.

I have an over-powering sense of deja vu (again).

This is all getting a bit futilistic, I&#39;ll bid you farewell.

Oh and if you feel I am personally attacking you, please refer same to a mod, who can read each of our posts and decide who is attacking who. RF is well placed to do it. Indeed his position is not did-similar to your own. Perhaps if you were to ask him he could have a wee read thro&#39; and decide if I was harsh on you. Like I said diddums, it&#39;s all there for people to see and decide for themselves.

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 01:13 PM
Terra nullis was found to be incorrect. You admit this. So what steps are you taking to give back the land to the native people that were there before you? I want to introduce you to my good friend, hypocrisy. You two are sure to get along well together.

Maybe you should research before you ask these questions: Australia is doing a lot about it, new land rights are granted every week: Vast tracts of land are now back in Aborigine hands: Huge amounts of cash are being spent.

Every single Aborigine in the country has special rights, so much so, that you have white Australians pretending to be Aboriginal to cash in on the extra benefits. Now tell us all what Israel are doing?

[JP]
I would have more respect for you if you were to own up to what you&#39;re doing. At least I admit to being a shit stirrer. You cloak your animosity to other posters in your grumpy old man persona, that&#39;s why you pretend to be 75. How many threads have been started about you and the way you treat people?


Originally posted by JP
Oh and if you feel I am personally attacking you, please refer same to a mod, ...
No thanks, I&#39;ll leave that type of behaviour to people of your ilk.


:)

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
10-26-2003, 01:15 PM
NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;
53 Posts in was where you lost this argument Billy&#33; :D

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@26 October 2003 - 22:15

NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;
53 Posts in was where you lost this argument Billy&#33; :D
Really??

Well that was a very intelligent and persuasive argument. I&#39;ll fuck off then.


:)

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
10-26-2003, 01:25 PM
ok http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/lock.gif

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+26 October 2003 - 14:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 26 October 2003 - 14:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
[JP]
I would have more respect for you if you were to own up to what you&#39;re doing.&nbsp; At least I admit to being a shit stirrer.&nbsp; You cloak your animosity to other posters in your grumpy old man persona, that&#39;s why you pretend to be 75.&nbsp; How many threads have been started about you and the way you treat people?

<!--QuoteBegin-JP
Oh and if you feel I am personally attacking you, please refer same to a mod, ...
No thanks, I&#39;ll leave that type of behaviour to people of your ilk.


:)[/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You whine in public, bo ho the bad man is nasty to me.

Then you say this, what an arse.

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by JP
.... bo ho the bad man is nasty to me.

bo ho? What&#39;s that in English?

You get personal with everyone who gets the better of you JP. As you have with me on several occasions. But I don&#39;t mind, it&#39;s a price I&#39;m willing to pay to show you up for the bigot you are. So get personal mate, give it your best shot.


:)

exeus
10-26-2003, 02:03 PM
this may not have much to do with this thread but i have seen many talking about Australia there is proof from vic to the nt that the Aboriginalls were not the first here there was another race of ppl here that the Aboriginals wiped out..... i know that for a fact the main reason (i know)is the bones found in an old dry lake just near where i live that the Aboriginals claimed as their own when in fact the bones were from an early race of ppl......
all kept pretty quite, so the English wernt the first to claim this land from another ppl

Biggles
10-26-2003, 02:07 PM
Mediaslayer

You are right in so much as I did say that the Sharron government promised much and has delivered nothing. By this mark I identified incompetence has a hall mark of his administration.

I am baffled that you think David Kelly&#39;s name is not one I would want to hear. To the contrary I would like to know exactly what happened. I too am a Civil Servant and I was alarmed by the treatment he received from the powers that be. I assume you were attempting to imply through this that the UK Government is incompetent. This could be argued on the strength of certain service indicators but not the David Kelly affair. It could, however, be argued that the Government of the day are control freaks who will stoop very low in order to get their way. This in my view is far worse than mere incompetence. I look forward to the results of the inquiry.

There may well have been incompetence in the US and UK intelligence data-gathering - however, it&#39;s a bit harsh to actually blame Tony Blair and George Bush for this no matter how tempting. :)

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+26 October 2003 - 14:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 26 October 2003 - 14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-JP
.... bo ho the bad man is nasty to me.

bo ho? What&#39;s that in English?

You get personal with everyone who gets the better of you JP. As you have with me on several occasions. But I don&#39;t mind, it&#39;s a price I&#39;m willing to pay to show you up for the bigot you are. So get personal mate, give it your best shot.


:)[/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I refer you to my answer of several moments ago. It&#39;s all there for people to read old bean.

Everyone can make up their own mind on who does what, who gets personal and who is the bigot.

Wasn&#39;t it you who got the PM from a mod warning you about your behaviour. Oh that&#39;s right you "apologised" to j2 and I after that one.


I&#39;ve just noticed I had 8 unread PM&#39;s. Two were warnings from mod&#39;s about my "abuse" towards j2, and my "attacks" on JPaul.

j2, if you see my remarks in any way other than the light hearted way they were intended, I apologise.

JPaul, if you feel I have in any way attacked you personally, I apologise to you also.

My mistake it was 2 warnings, sorry about that.

Billy, can you even begin to accept that, it may not be the army which is out of step after all. It is perhaps you. Or are you going to stick to your position that there is no need to let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory.

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by exeus@26 October 2003 - 15:03
this may not have much to do with this thread but i have seen many talking about Australia there is proof from vic to the nt that the Aboriginalls were not the first here there was another race of ppl here that the Aboriginals wiped out..... i know that for a fact the main reason (i know)is the bones found in an old dry lake just near where i live that the Aboriginals claimed as their own when in fact the bones were from an early race of ppl......
all kept pretty quite, so the English wernt the first to claim this land from another ppl

There is no archeological trace of any human occupation of Australia earlier than the Aboriginals. Extensive evidence of “megafauna” only – ancient lions and dinosaurs roaming the continent – is all that has been found.

From (http://www.ausivisa.com/ausiv/page.asp?page=Anlia_705)

On this site (http://www.ausivisa.com/)

I don&#39;t know how accurate it is, I just thought I would point it out for you to have a read if you wanted.

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 04:18 PM
Haha&#33; I was taking the piss JP, and you fell for it&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:

I&#39;ve had no warnings, I was asked to moderate my language.

I apologised as a laugh.

As i said before, look at all the threads there have been about you, people wanting to kill you even. It&#39;s your manner, you have nothing to add to a thread, so you attack the poster, you do it all the time.

What have you contributed to this thread? That Australians should vacate the land? Very constructive, very intelligent&#33; Of course, you have a very obvious hidden agenda here, England, Ireland, Scotland ... You should get out more, see the world before senility takes over completely. Go to some of these places you know so much about. Get some first hand experience.




:)

exeus
10-26-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by JPaul+27 October 2003 - 00:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 27 October 2003 - 00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-exeus@26 October 2003 - 15:03
this may not have much to do with this thread but i have seen many talking about Australia there is proof from vic to the nt that the Aboriginalls were not the first here there was another race of ppl here that the Aboriginals wiped out..... i know that for a fact the main reason (i know)is the bones found in an old dry lake just near where i live that the Aboriginals claimed as their own when in fact the bones were from an early race of ppl......
all kept pretty quite, so the English wernt the first to claim this land from another ppl

There is no archeological trace of any human occupation of Australia earlier than the Aboriginals. Extensive evidence of “megafauna” only – ancient lions and dinosaurs roaming the continent – is all that has been found.

From (http://www.ausivisa.com/ausiv/page.asp?page=Anlia_705)

On this site (http://www.ausivisa.com/)

I don&#39;t know how accurate it is, I just thought I would point it out for you to have a read if you wanted. [/b][/quote]
i understand where you are comming from its like i was always taught that Captian Cook was the first white man to discover Australia...
anyhow i did a quick search in google for the terms (kow swamp Aboriginals)this is the second resault the first was down (http://www.internetezy.com.au/~mj129/australiacradleofcivilisation.html) also there has been debate over cave paintings...

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 04:37 PM
Always the conspiracy theorist eh Billy. There&#39;s always a hidden agenda.

I can only continue to re-iterate, tho&#39; by now it is obvious that you never actually read what people say, or more likely twist it round and deliberately mis-represent. The posts are all there for people to read and to decide for themselves who is guilty of what. It is there for people to see what was constructive.

One of yours I think


NO&#33; It is not a black hole. it&#39;s black and white&#33; Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out&#33;&#33;

It is you who sees the hidden agenda, but then you wouldn&#39;t really be happy if you didn&#39;t believe it was there.

On a serious point, have you ever thought of getting professional help, or possibly returning to it.

With regard to the apology. Yes, you got me there. I had thought it genuine and I assume that j2 had as well. I actually thought you a bigger man for doing it. It now appears that it was just your idea of a joke. How very adult of you. Can you get any more sad.

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 04:47 PM
Come on JP, lighten up, crack a smile, stop being so stuffy, try walking around in the wife&#39;s underwear, give that ego of yours a caning. I wouldn&#39;t mind betting you&#39;re a decent chap under all that vitriol.



With regard to the apology. Yes, you got me there. I had thought it genuine ....

Did you? Well you didn&#39;t have the good grace to acknowledge it, did you?


:)

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by exeus+26 October 2003 - 17:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (exeus &#064; 26 October 2003 - 17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by JPaul@27 October 2003 - 00:50
<!--QuoteBegin-exeus@26 October 2003 - 15:03
this may not have much to do with this thread but i have seen many talking about Australia there is proof from vic to the nt that the Aboriginalls were not the first here there was another race of ppl here that the Aboriginals wiped out..... i know that for a fact the main reason (i know)is the bones found in an old dry lake just near where i live that the Aboriginals claimed as their own when in fact the bones were from an early race of ppl......
all kept pretty quite, so the English wernt the first to claim this land from another ppl

There is no archeological trace of any human occupation of Australia earlier than the Aboriginals. Extensive evidence of “megafauna” only – ancient lions and dinosaurs roaming the continent – is all that has been found.

From (http://www.ausivisa.com/ausiv/page.asp?page=Anlia_705)

On this site (http://www.ausivisa.com/)

I don&#39;t know how accurate it is, I just thought I would point it out for you to have a read if you wanted.
i understand where you are comming from its like i was always taught that Captian Cook was the first white man to discover Australia...
anyhow i did a quick search in google for the terms (kow swamp Aboriginals)this is the second resault the first was down (http://www.internetezy.com.au/~mj129/australiacradleofcivilisation.html) also there has been debate over cave paintings...[/b][/quote]
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the read.

Please bear in mind that it was by Rex Gilroy, who is actually an amateur in the field (as I understand it). I am not sure if his theories with regard to the Giants of prehistoric Australia are widely accepted.

I&#39;m not sure if this is the same chap


Rex Gilroy: &#39;Missing Civilization of Uru, The Lost Paradise of Mankind&#39;

Well known author and researcher Rex Gilroy will be discussing his research into a lost civilization in Australia which predates the aboriginal people. Rex believes the civilization of Uru is of extraterrestrial origin which has great implications for our history and for mankind today.


Or this one


The Australasian Society for Psychical Research invites you to&nbsp; their next talk, to be given by
Rex Gilroy


Rex is well-known for his research into the Australian Yowie and is a regular contributor to "The Australasian Ufologist" magazine.&nbsp; Rex&#39;s talk,which will be illustrated with slides, will be based on his new book called "Australian UFOs Through the Window of Time" in which he claims that for several decades the American government has been operating a secret UFO research facility in the Burragorang Valley in the New South Wales Blue Mountains.

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@26 October 2003 - 17:47
Come on JP, lighten up, crack a smile, stop being so stuffy, try walking around in the wife&#39;s underwear, give that ego of yours a caning.&nbsp; I wouldn&#39;t mind betting you&#39;re a decent chap under all thet vitriol.



With regard to the apology. Yes, you got me there. I had thought it genuine ....

Did you? Well you didn&#39;t have the good grace to acknowledge it, did you?


:)
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I didn&#39;t have the good grace to acknowledge your fake apology, which was a piss take.

Do you ever read your posts back and think how it will sound to other people.

Thank you, sincerely. I am genuinely laughing IRL.

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 05:03 PM
I didn&#39;t have the good grace to acknowledge your fake apology, which was a piss take.

But of course, you didn&#39;t know that, did you?


:)

Mivaro
10-26-2003, 05:04 PM
Hey BD and JP, every time i&#39;m reading both your posts, i have to think of these 2 guys :lol:
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

exeus
10-26-2003, 05:05 PM
point taken, that was just the first link that loaded for me im not saying it is correct but that it is possible, there is evidence of a race that was either wiped out or absorbed some more reputable sites talk "edu" debate whether it was another race or whether the differances were due to the practiceing of some sort of deforming "ritual" for lack of better word at this time of morning

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 05:05 PM
I hope I&#39;m the one on the left&#33;


:)

Mivaro
10-26-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@26 October 2003 - 18:05
I hope I&#39;m the one on the left&#33;


:)
I suggest you argue over that with JP :D

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@26 October 2003 - 18:03

I didn&#39;t have the good grace to acknowledge your fake apology, which was a piss take.

But of course, you didn&#39;t know that, did you?


:)
Yes and discussed it with someone.

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by JPaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>With regard to the apology. Yes, you got me there. I had thought it genuine ....[/b]


Originally posted by BD@
But of course, you didn&#39;t know that, did you?

<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul
Yes and discussed it with someone. [/quote]

So which one is the lie? I&#39;m intrigued&#33;


:)

Rat Faced
10-26-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@26 October 2003 - 16:18
Haha&#33; I was taking the piss JP, and you fell for it&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:

I&#39;ve had no warnings, I was asked to moderate my language.

I apologised as a laugh.

As i said before, look at all the threads there have been about you, people wanting to kill you even. It&#39;s your manner, you have nothing to add to a thread, so you attack the poster, you do it all the time.

What have you contributed to this thread? That Australians should vacate the land? Very constructive, very intelligent&#33; Of course, you have a very obvious hidden agenda here, England, Ireland, Scotland ... You should get out more, see the world before senility takes over completely. Go to some of these places you know so much about. Get some first hand experience.




:)
I wouldnt bet on that....

Serious World Events ....Rules of Play... (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=72070)

In Particular, its stated that no PM "Warnings" will be necessarily be given.....as there was at this time a number of people coming in just to make a comment.

These rules of play are for everyone though..

Ask yourselves who has had there "Warnings" adjusted...coz im staying closemouthed on the subject.

:rolleyes:


If its any consilation....I cant see my warning level either, but am bound by the same rules...

Any of the Mods can, I believe, put me on Moderation at any time....and certainly the Admins can ;)

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+26 October 2003 - 18:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 26 October 2003 - 18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by JPaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>With regard to the apology. Yes, you got me there. I had thought it genuine ....[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-BD@
But of course, you didn&#39;t know that, did you?

<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul
Yes and discussed it with someone. [/quote]

So which one is the lie? I&#39;m intrigued&#33;


:) [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please stop, I keep thinking you can&#39;t make more of an arse of yourself and then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid.

Billy_Dean
10-26-2003, 05:53 PM
You really are a dickhead JP, in one post you didn&#39;t know, in another you did.

I repeat; which one was a lie?





:)

hobbes
10-26-2003, 05:59 PM
Rat,

Can we make this thread "Pay-per-view" to raise a little cash for the forum? I&#39;ve already launched milk through my nose twice reading it.

J'Pol
10-26-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@26 October 2003 - 18:53
You really are a dickhead JP, in one post you didn&#39;t know, in another you did.

I repeat; which one was a lie?





:)
OOOOh I repeat; which one was a lie ?

You tell me where you were born and I&#39;ll tell you.

You show me yours and I&#39;ll show you mine.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mod he called me a dickhead, is that allowed.

j2k4
10-26-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 October 2003 - 17:55
That is hogwash j2k4.

The range is "Right" eg Facists to "Left" eg Communists.

Everything is within this global range, which is why i state that the "Left" is right of centre "In Israel"....

Without this, then people would assume that "Left" = Socialist.

Or is this what you wish people to believe? That the "Centre" there is the same as that which is Globaly recognised.

There is no "Socialist Party" in Israel, just as there is no "Socialist Party" in the USA... (or in the UK at the moment, IMHO)

note:

By "No Socialist Party", i refer to an electable party.... ie influential in the Affairs of State.
Not so, Rat.

As you choose to define a "global" range, maybe so, but perhaps a range might exist within a range?

I know historically that Mussolini ran a Fascist government in Italy.

I have seen posting in this forum which seeks to legitimately equate GWB and our current government with that brand of fascism, and similarly to liken GWB to Hitler in some nationalist sense.

If that is what you believe to be true, I humbly submit you are off your nut-if not, pardon me, please.

Hell, most of you don&#39;t have the slightest idea what a conservative is, you only know what you&#39;ve been told by your media; I shouldn&#39;t wonder why we misunderstand each other constantly.

Also:

No matter what you believe, America has historically been a target of Communism, as we have been most at odds over the years with the old USSR and Communist China.

The remnants of the philosophy exist today in the liberal "wing" of our Democrat party.

I know what "LEFT" means politically-thank you very much.

Rat Faced
10-26-2003, 10:02 PM
CONSERVATIVE:

Tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these: as, a conservative political party.


LIBERAL:

Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, politics, etc.; specifically, favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive: now sometimes disinguished from progressive,as connoting somewhat more consevatism.

Source = Websters Dictionary (http://www.geocities.com/benjaminjankowski/definitions.html)

You appear to agree with these (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2241&catcode=13) definitions at times

:rolleyes:


I disagree...

I think modern Conservatives have forgotton the meaning.....

j2k4
10-26-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 October 2003 - 17:02
CONSERVATIVE:

Tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these: as, a conservative political party.


LIBERAL:

Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, politics, etc.; specifically, favoring political&nbsp; reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive: now sometimes disinguished from progressive,as connoting somewhat more consevatism.

Source = Websters Dictionary (http://www.geocities.com/benjaminjankowski/definitions.html)

You appear to agree with these (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2241&catcode=13) definitions at times

:rolleyes:


I disagree...

I think modern Conservatives have forgotton the meaning.....
Ah-

I should have known better.

Anent "liberal":

Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, politics, etc.; specifically, favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive: now sometimes disinguished from progressive,as connoting somewhat more conservatism.

So, then-"reform" and "progress" are hereby given the untarnished (and untarnishable) gleam of being positive in all circumstances and cases, and are therefore uniformly worthy of our striving.

And now "conservative":


Tending to preserve established traditions or institution and to resist or oppose any changes in these: as a conservative political party.

Ergo, as conservatism is opposite of liberalism, it must be, by process of deduction, bad, and therefore opposed on all fronts.


Rat, there is so much more to the argument than that-must you default to a "dictionary" definition to preserve the simplicity of your presumptions about conservatives?

This will have to be continued tomorrow. ;)

Rat Faced
10-26-2003, 11:05 PM
If its any consolation J2.....

I think both meanings have been twisted, especially in the last few decades...

Your "Left" (The Democrats) would have been closer to our "Centre" for most of last Century.....



It was the liberals that demanded independance from Britain... (using the USA as an example)

In this day and age... it would be the conservatives that would do something so nationalistic ;)

Somewhere along the road, the word "Liberal" became dirty in the USA.

In the UK "Liberals" are traditionally the Centre Road, blending the best of both Right and Left. Now, it appears they are the "Left" in the UK....despite not having actually changed their policies at all.......

dont figure.

:rolleyes:

Biggles
10-26-2003, 11:30 PM
I think partly the problem is in trying to determine a global definition of Liberal and Conservative.

For the UK, the Liberals were very much the party of the middle classes or new money. They believed in personal freedom and the right to conduct free enterprise unfettered. The Conservative Party was the party of Land and Crown. It also tended to take a paternalistic interest in the working classes (who had no vote) and deplored the dehumanising effects of the dark satanic mills of the industrialists. This was at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, circa 1780.

However, over time the parties changed their positions somewhat. New money bought into the old systems of prestige and power and increasingly the Conservative ranks filled with the industrialists. The Liberals, on the other hand, and perhaps in response to both a wider franchise and the rise of the workers parties moved to embrace a greater range of social policies. It was the Liberals who introduced the pensions and a number of other benefits at the turn of the 20th century.

It is not easy to translate these definitions of Conservative and Liberal to the US political map. These terms have developed differently there. I believe the term Liberal means something quite different to an American than it does to us. Here Liberals are Clement Freud, Jo Grimmond and David Steel. Gentlemen with gentle policies. No UK paper would try to vilify a poltician by calling him an out and out liberal - it would mean nothing. Now "Red Ken" or "Militant Trot", these are the words that get hurled around our more left of centre bogeymen.

In short, every country has a range of poltical spectrums. I am sorry I used the term left and right with regards Israel but I felt they were relevant within that political spectrum and had not intended to make them directly comparable to any other country. I believe an Israeli would understand that If I said left I meant the Labour Party and by right the Likud (or something more extreme). Are there any Israelis on here who could please correct me if I am wrong?

j2k4
10-26-2003, 11:46 PM
Rat and Biggles-

Both of your last posts were indicative of my view as to the "non-transferablity" of such terms from country-to-country.

Things don&#39;t mean what they did formerly; we certainly seem to agree on that; If John F. Kennedy were alive today, he could certainly run to the right of GWB.

If I were alive in the 18th or 19th century, I&#39;m not sure where I&#39;d fall.

Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln would be considered an extreme racist today.

Let&#39;s continue this-I should be able to spend some time tomorrow. :)

Rat Faced
10-26-2003, 11:57 PM
J2k4

I dont think its the "non transferability" of views, so much as language.

There is a definite "Left" and "Right" with descernable points, that can be transfered to describe the politics of differing countries.


It is the definition of the terms themselves which mean different things in different countries, this causes confusion and mis-communication.

eg

"Left" for you = Democrat.

"Left" and "Liberal" seem to be the same... again to you.

To me a "Democrat" (US Political Party) is not "Left", although it is a lot closer to "Left" than the "Republican" party in the USA.

As predominantly the posters in this thread appear to speak Englsh as a 1st language, i dread to think what non-English speakers make of it.


:blink:

Maybe its time to argue out some definitions, for use in this Forum...

It would be Ironic to find out that some people that are at each others throats, may just be arguing over symantics (although i very much doubt it)

:lol:

Biggles
10-27-2003, 12:05 AM
Rat Face

I would agree with that. In much of Europe the centre right is known as the Christian Democratic Party. This may have seemed like a good idea back in the 1940s but maybe something of a handicap in the more multi-cultural Europe of today. Perhaps some of our European friends, who by and large, have a better command of the English language than some of the erstwhile native speakers on here, could contribute their thoughts on the subject.

I like your new avatar by the way, give me that old time religion. :)

Edited for yet more typos. :(

Rat Faced
10-27-2003, 12:38 AM
Why thankyou Biggles...

BTW

http://www.pcs.org.uk/images/pcs_logo.gif

You with this lot too?

;)

MediaSlayer
10-27-2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@26 October 2003 - 13:13
Maybe you should research before you ask these questions: Australia is doing a lot about it, new land rights are granted every week: Vast tracts of land are now back in Aborigine hands: Huge amounts of cash are being spent.

Every single Aborigine in the country has special rights, so much so, that you have white Australians pretending to be Aboriginal to cash in on the extra benefits. Now tell us all what Israel are doing?


Research this:

http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/australia.jpg

and this:
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/Israel.jpg

Three points:
Australia is not only a country, its a continent. They have alot of land to spare.

Some land is more valuable than other land. I&#39;m referring to natural resources, global position, ect... I mention this because the west bank is not some deserted piece of worthless land. As you can see, the west bank and the gaza strip take up a significant portion of Israel(i&#39;m not gonna even mention the golan heights). It&#39;s not like the palestinians are asking for the southern portion of Judea, which is mostly desert. That would be less of a strain on Israel. Israel has waaaayyyy less land to give than Australia, yet at various times, huge proportions were being offered to the palestinians. They didn&#39;t take it. Some people like to fight.

Another thing to consider, that&#39;s related to the point above: the middle of Australia is desert. I request Billy Dean to post a map of Australia showing which parts of Australia are being offered to the native people. If it&#39;s large tracts of land on the southeastern coast, I would be impressed. I propose you give them Victoria and South Australia. Proportionally, I think that would be about equal to the west bank and gaza strip in Israel. Be sure and respond quickly now Billy Dean, I&#39;m eager to give the natives the good news&#33;&#33;&#33; :D

KcIrPaSiLuApJ
10-27-2003, 08:49 AM
Let me first say this; Australia is not a continent, it&#39;s a country, it belongs to the continent of Australasia, a simple geography lesson for you.

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/271003-mapnow.jpg

This is what&#39;s left of the West Bank at the moment. As the settlements increase, this land gets less and less. Remember, in 1948 they had all of it. And why did you mention the Golan Heights? You stole that from Syria, not the Palestinians.

To compare Aborigines to Palestinians is idiocy. They own more land than Israel, and get more every day. Large tracts of the East Coast? They own a lot of the East Coast, and more is in the pipeline. As for being desert - that&#39;s where a lot of them live, and that&#39;s the land they have asked for, their tribal lands.

To try to hide the appalling acts being perpetrated by the state of Israel, by calling other countries names is ludicrous. Are you seriously saying that Israel treats Palestinians better than Australia treats Aborigines? You must be sick&#33; No wonder the world hates Israel.

MediaSlayer
10-27-2003, 09:08 AM
@KcIrPaSiLuApJ-October 27th huh? Don&#39;t worry I&#39;m sure no-one will notice. :lol:


Let me first say this; Australia is not a continent, it&#39;s a country, it belongs to the continent of Australasia, a simple geography lesson for you.


Do you seriously want to argue about the definition of a continent? So far not one single person has even been able to produce a fabricated story about being conspired against by a Jew or suffering at the hands of a Jew personally. The only thing that has been produced so far is hate and propaganda, aimed at Jews. The post above is a good example. Is that what you think of as politics? Flame people who have a different view than you? Would you kill them too? As I said before Guns don&#39;t kill people, ideologies kill people. Speaking of world domination, if the world were run by you, we would all be dead right now. :angry:

KcIrPaSiLuApJ
10-27-2003, 09:40 AM
I was merely replying to your misinformed post. If you have no wish to discuss the definition of continent, why did you mention it?

As for running down jews, have I done that? It&#39;s an old trick to associate two seperate issues and claim they are the same. It&#39;s Israel the world hates, not jews - not all of them, anyway.

You also state that no-one has suffered personally at the hands of jews. When a country causes pain, suffering and death on a people, the way Israel is doing to the Palestinians, we all suffer personally, all that is, except people like you, who don&#39;t give a shit.

World domination? Who mentioned that? You really do have a problem, don&#39;t you?

Just one more point for folk to consider, your words ..
As you can see, the west bank and the gaza strip take up a significant portion of Israel For your information, the West Bank and Gaza strip make up Palestine, not Israel, they don&#39;t take up one square inch of Israel.

MediaSlayer
10-27-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by KcIrPaSiLuApJ@27 October 2003 - 09:40
I was merely replying to your misinformed post. If you have no wish to discuss the definition of continent, why did you mention it?

As for running down jews, have I done that? It&#39;s an old trick to associate two seperate issues and claim they are the same. It&#39;s Israel the world hates, not jews - not all of them, anyway.

You also state that no-one has suffered personally at the hands of jews. When a country causes pain, suffering and death on a people, the way Israel is doing to the Palestinians, we all suffer personally, all that is, except people like you, who don&#39;t give a shit.

World domination? Who mentioned that? You really do have a problem, don&#39;t you?

Just one more point for folk to consider, your words ..
As you can see, the west bank and the gaza strip take up a significant portion of Israel For your information, the West Bank and Gaza strip make up Palestine, not Israel, they don&#39;t take up one square inch of Israel.

I was merely replying to your misinformed post.

I was asking you if you were serious, and it sounds like you are. At any rate, here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=continent) you go. I&#39;m sure you won&#39;t agree, though.


As for running down jews, have I done that?&nbsp; It&#39;s an old trick to associate two seperate issues and claim they are the same.&nbsp; It&#39;s Israel the world hates, not jews - not all of them, anyway.


American Jewry, which is far more powerful than Israeli Jewry, supports Israeli policy. It has been mentioned in another thread about certain Jewish politicians who pass laws in order to help Israel. I have no idea why you don&#39;t hate them too, they are so much more influential in world affairs than any Israeli.


It&#39;s an old trick to associate two seperate issues and claim they are the same.

Are you a master of tricks? Is it a coincidence that this very hot debate gets started and suddenly people join the forum and jump right in with a new account?


You also state that no-one has suffered personally at the hands of jews.

I stated that no-one has been able to tell any real life stories about being conspired against by a Jew or suffering at the hands of a Jew. Not even a made up one, which is surprising. Why did I request it in the first place? Because I knew there would be emotionally charged people, like yourself, who would insert propaganda/dogmas instead of anything that resembles a fact.


World domination? Who mentioned that? You really do have a problem, don&#39;t you?


Look at the first post in this thread. Although I didn&#39;t specify what type of Jewish Conspiracy, I was talking about the usual "Jews control the world" or "Jews are gonna take over the world". In that 1st post, I was taunting those people who preach those theories and asking them to provide some shred of proof from real life experiences to prove it was true. An example of a real life experience is not "my tv said so". An example of a real life >read:first hand< experience would be "a Jewish person at my workplace discriminated against me" or something like that and give details.

MediaSlayer
10-27-2003, 10:42 AM
@KcIrPaSiLuApj-Oh, and when are you gonna hand over Victoria to the native people? Have you met my friend?

3RA1N1AC
10-27-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 October 2003 - 14:02
CONSERVATIVE:

Tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these: as, a conservative political party.
i think conservatives often push for the reinstatement of customs/policies/modes which are no longer in use by the mainstream. but simply because the things they favor are older, they claim to be preserving the customs. in many cases it&#39;s regression to abandoned customs that they&#39;re pushing for, rather than preservation.

for example (admittedly a broad one) puritan morality has been essentially abandoned by mainstream american society. to preserve the established modes would be to leave things exactly as they are. to re-establish the dominance of puritan values would be to regress. i&#39;m using "puritan" in a very loose sense of the word, of course-- prolly the better phrase would be "puritan-influenced."

lynx
10-27-2003, 11:41 AM
I don&#39;t think your new id will fool anyone, Billy.

lynx
10-27-2003, 11:52 AM
Regarding "Left" and "Right", I&#39;m sure many here would be surprised to learn that in the former Soviet Union, those in favour of a more "western" approach to politics were regarded as left-wing, with the right being occupied by those more in favour of stronger communist principles, and were regarded as conservatives. As far as I know the same currently applies in communist China.

It follows that to try to apply a global definition of the terms left and right in political terms is illogical, since the terms apply to the prevailing political climate of a region. If we are to use these terms at all, we need to state which political ideology we are using as a base.

MediaSlayer
10-27-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by lynx@27 October 2003 - 11:41
I don&#39;t think your new id will fool anyone, Billy.
:o :o :o :o :o :o

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
10-27-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by KcIrPaSiLuApJ@27 October 2003 - 09:40
When a country causes pain, suffering and death on a people, the way Israel is doing to the Palestinians.


How can you say that without including the same fact that the palestinians are impossing death and suffering on the innocent civilians of Israel. It goes both ways.
I have no preference for agreeing with one side or another, but death and suffering is being inflicted on and by both sides.

MagicNakor
10-27-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by lynx@27 October 2003 - 12:52
Regarding "Left" and "Right", I&#39;m sure many here would be surprised to learn that in the former Soviet Union, those in favour of a more "western" approach to politics were regarded as left-wing, with the right being occupied by those more in favour of stronger communist principles, and were regarded as conservatives. As far as I know the same currently applies in communist China...
The political spectrum is less of a line and more of a circle.

When dealing with Communism in practice, it&#39;s almost indistinguishable from facism.

:ninja:

KcIrPaSiLuApJ
10-27-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by lynx@27 October 2003 - 20:41
I don&#39;t think your new id will fool anyone, Billy.
No-one is trying to fool anyone Lynx, Billy was banned for fuck all, and was treated like a little kid, quite the norm for this board.

KcIrPaSiLuApJ
10-27-2003, 01:55 PM
Australasia. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=australasia)


American Jewry, which is far more powerful than Israeli Jewry, supports Israeli policy. It has been mentioned in another thread about certain Jewish politicians who pass laws in order to help Israel. I have no idea why you don&#39;t hate them too, they are so much more influential in world affairs than any Israeli.

You really are desperate aren&#39;t you? It&#39;s the Israeli government who are committing murder, dispossessing people, ignoring United Nations resolutions, and all the other crimes against humanity, and you want us to hate someone else.

For your information, I am not interested in conspiracy theories, of any kind. I&#39;m concerned with the state sponsored terrorism carried out by Israel, with the complicity of the US. So far you have failed to condemn Israel&#39;s actions, which says a lot about you.

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
10-27-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by KcIrPaSiLuApJ@27 October 2003 - 13:55
Australasia. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=australasia)


American Jewry, which is far more powerful than Israeli Jewry, supports Israeli policy. It has been mentioned in another thread about certain Jewish politicians who pass laws in order to help Israel. I have no idea why you don&#39;t hate them too, they are so much more influential in world affairs than any Israeli.

You really are desperate aren&#39;t you? It&#39;s the Israeli government who are committing murder, dispossessing people, ignoring United Nations resolutions, and all the other crimes against humanity, and you want us to hate someone else.

For your information, I am not interested in conspiracy theories, of any kind. I&#39;m concerned with the state sponsored terrorism carried out by Israel, with the complicity of the US. So far you have failed to condemn Israel&#39;s actions, which says a lot about you.
And you have failed to condemn the terrorist acts of the Palestinain people upon innocent Israeli&#39;s. No side can be defended for there bloody actions, but all sides can be condemned.

KcIrPaSiLuApJ
10-27-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@27 October 2003 - 23:10
And you have failed to condemn the terrorist acts of the Palestinain people upon innocent Israeli&#39;s. No side can be defended for there bloody actions, but all sides can be condemned.
I&#39;ve said it many times.

Perhaps you&#39;d like to tell us what else they are supposed to do? They remember how Israel used terrorism, first to establish their state, then to rid it of Palestinians. They continue using terrorism to this day.

Remember the Stern gang? The very terrorist group that did a deal with Hitler to expel jews from Europe, and who may have caused the holocaust to happen. To the victor go the spoils. They also get to write history.

NikkiD
10-27-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by KcIrPaSiLuApJ+27 October 2003 - 08:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KcIrPaSiLuApJ @ 27 October 2003 - 08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@27 October 2003 - 20:41
I don&#39;t think your new id will fool anyone, Billy.
No-one is trying to fool anyone Lynx, Billy was banned for fuck all, and was treated like a little kid, quite the norm for this board. [/b][/quote]
Actually, the account wasn&#39;t banned, it was put on 3 days moderation. This one gets suspended entirely.

And it wasn&#39;t for "fuck all" it was for flaming and argument - JPaul got a warning, since it wasn&#39;t your first offense, you got moderation. Does that clear it up?

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
10-27-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by KcIrPaSiLuApJ+27 October 2003 - 14:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KcIrPaSiLuApJ @ 27 October 2003 - 14:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@27 October 2003 - 23:10
And you have failed to condemn the terrorist acts of the Palestinain people upon innocent Israeli&#39;s. No side can be defended for there bloody actions, but all sides can be condemned.
I&#39;ve said it many times.

Perhaps you&#39;d like to tell us what else they are supposed to do?
[/b][/quote]
I condemn both sides and am sick of seeing it on the news day in, day out.
What are they (Palestinian&#39;s) supposed to do? Stop fighting and aim for world support/sympathy, if this were to happen i could see a lot of nations having this support/sympathy for the Palestinians. But until then they have not got much hope.
The future will involve all terrorist acts by so called terrorist states against civilized nations to come under probable military attack. But saying that the question of defining the word "terrorism" is still unanswered for me.

j2k4
10-27-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 October 2003 - 18:57
J2k4

I dont think its the "non transferability" of views, so much as language.

There is a definite "Left" and "Right" with descernable points, that can be transfered to describe the politics of differing countries.


It is the definition of the terms themselves which mean different things in different countries, this causes confusion and mis-communication.

eg

"Left" for you = Democrat.

"Left" and "Liberal" seem to be the same... again to you.

To me a "Democrat" (US Political Party) is not "Left", although it is a lot closer to "Left" than the "Republican" party in the USA.

As predominantly the posters in this thread appear to speak Englsh as a 1st language, i dread to think what non-English speakers make of it.&nbsp;


:blink:

Maybe its time to argue out some definitions, for use in this Forum...

It would be Ironic to find out that some people that are at each others throats, may just be arguing over symantics (although i very much doubt it)

:lol:
Setting terms would be a worthy endeavor, though fraught with difficulty.

While certain of us (I include here all those "obvious" ;) ) could, I&#39;m sure, come up with something workable, in other countries, as has been pointed out, such as conservatism would be regarded as extreme left; this type of differential of understanding would dictate a cock-up.

I think that if we can&#39;t even get that straight, then maybe we ought to just use the proper terms, i.e., Labour, Conservative, Likud, etc., and those who wonder at the difference could ask, which would foment more questions, and likewise, more understanding.

I know, for example, that we here think of the U.K. as having a good number of Socialized concerns-the BBC being a prime example.

Here, we have P.B.S. and N.P.R., which receive a stipend, but are not supported to anywhere near the extent the Beeb is; they are regarded as quite liberal, and, ironically, carry alot of BBC content, however they do not feel at all compelled to attempt the Beeb&#39;s "balance".

Biggles
10-27-2003, 07:42 PM
Rat Face

:rolleyes:

For my sins I am Branch Treasurer (largely, I suspect, because i) I am relatively apolitical and ii) no one else would do it).

My this debate has taken an odd twist or two since yesterday&#33;

Hmm I see one cannot do a) etc., as the next in line comes out B) oh well i) will do.

Rat Faced
10-27-2003, 08:15 PM
Branch Secretary :lol:

Like you say...no one else will do the job <_<

blackhatknight
10-29-2003, 01:58 AM
A Honest Post if Anyone Cares

Firstly I feel the Jew’s constantly complain about their lack of support, this is discrediting anyone that does and making their efforts in vain.

As an earlier poster wrote the Jew’s are Gods peculiar people, however they are a cursed race and from a biblical point of view we all are (Children of wrath). Notably however to believe this or understand it one must be GENTILE.

As God’s peculiar people do they expect to go unpunished for this privilege, as some bullied the smartest kid at school they will also bullied the selected in the world.

It is not that Jew’s are good with money the covenant of Abraham gives them this innate privilege from the day they are circumcised they are thus privileged

I myself am a GENTILEhowever I have always noted extreme evil with anti-Semitic views, and as the New Testament teaches there will be goat nations and sheep nations, I feel we can disseminate between those greatly by their stance on Israel (it is not my intention to get into this there is already a thread that discusses which nations are alined behind Israel)

I also feel, in contrast, that anti Semitism has been used by many with less than honourable intentions, to tar people.

The issue will always remain a hot bed, I believe in predestination (for them that understand not explanation is necessary, for those that don’t no exploitation is possible), therefore this topic is discussing the irrelevant, the Jews will get their just rewards (be that positive or negative) as the GENTILE, it is just pity so mush blood shed is happening in between

I would greatly appreciate the orginal poster of this threads comments

* * *

This post will probably be edit as post of mine for spelling please show some consideration by not picking out obvious mistakes

MediaSlayer
10-29-2003, 05:01 AM
@blackhatknight-I somewhat agree with this.


Firstly I feel the Jew’s constantly complain about their lack of support, this is discrediting anyone that does and making their efforts in vain.


In real life, I have seen this play out extensively. Its goes back and forth, back and forth. Here is an example: In America, blacks were once slaves, they are hurt by that. They complain that they were once treated badly by whites, this causes sympathy for them. Sometimes, they overuse this argument, that they were treated badly, and it works against them. Then society feels less sympathy for them, opening the door for more bad treatment. I have seen it with Jews, but I personally don&#39;t think its a Jewish specific thing, I think its human nature. I should warn you though, this method of "oppress the other side then accuse the other side of complaining too much" can be used to achieve great evil when implemented correctly(lol, or incorrectly, if you prefer).


I also feel, in contrast, that anti Semitism has been used by many with less than honourable intentions, to tar people.

Yes, I agree to a certain extent. Its a shame there has to be aggression in the first place, on either side. Will the human race ever see peace?


It is not that Jew’s are good with money the covenant of Abraham gives them this innate privilege from the day they are circumcised they are thus privileged

Good point, I can&#39;t think of anything to say for the rest, welcome to the discussion :rolleyes: B) B)

blackhatknight
10-29-2003, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@29 October 2003 - 05:01

Firstly I feel the Jew’s constantly complain about their lack of support, this is discrediting anyone that does and making their efforts in vain.


In real life, I have seen this play out extensively. Its goes back and forth, back and forth. Here is an example: In America, blacks were once slaves,
I possilby belong to the smallest minority in the world (any one who reads my posts will know which one) do you not have to ask yourself if parrellels like this are helpful, i would argue they are self defeatest, though poorly put experssion of culture is not an excuse for intolerence but it unfortunately is a catalyist for hate, i have frequently had to prove my culture is wroth promoting, that it is worth perserving and that it can add to society therefore i understand the sentiment of your first post however with such minorities every word you make in public counts

God will judge your kind as he sees fit, he will protect them accordingly, and will reserve His sovergin right to punish them as his [once]* chosen people, do you have anything to fear???

*added depending on orintation

EDIT: last paragraph added too and spelling (I know still isn&#39;t good)

leonidas
10-31-2003, 02:48 PM
Let&#39;s be simple & concise sometime.

There&#39;s no real jewish conspiracy.

Jews are just well integrated to the world capitalistic economical system, & are important actors of it. I think we can compare the situation of the jews nowadays, with the protestants decribed a long time ago by Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

But the fact is that the world capitalistic economical system has really nothing moral nowadays. It&#39;s just based on salvation.

So jews in a way are guilty. I have to precise nevertheless that not all jews are concerning by that at all. I&#39;m just talking about majority. And they are off course not the only culprits.

So the first question of this topic is pointless, as the pain is caused indirectly, so people wont tell you they have been directly maltreated by a jew personn.


@MediaSlayer: But good try boss... You may become a good lying politician. B)

MediaSlayer
10-31-2003, 04:30 PM
awwww.....leonidas bumped my thread :wub: in time for halloween(in usa its almost noon, only a couple of hours until halloween)............i feel so.....*sniffle........special.............all i can say is "merci beaucoup, miseur" B) :lol:
http://www.brewreview.com/brewreview/ontap/001015/maintitle.gif

Rat Faced
10-31-2003, 05:46 PM
I have to precise nevertheless that not all jews are concerning by that at all. I&#39;m just talking about majority.

I wouldnt even say the Majority, the majority of Jews are not influential in world affairs and politics.

The majority may sympathise with Israel and shout, but thats about all...just like many Christians.

Its the influential Jewish minority that manage the spin.

leonidas
10-31-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@31 October 2003 - 17:30
awwww.....leonidas bumped my thread :wub: in time for halloween(in usa its almost noon, only a couple of hours until halloween)............i feel so.....*sniffle........special.............all i can say is "merci beaucoup, miseur" B) :lol:
http://www.brewreview.com/brewreview/ontap/001015/maintitle.gif
I didn&#39;t know I was a celebrity :lol:
Thanks for your cordial reception :)

@Rat-faced:
Maybe I&#39;m exagerating saying "the majority". So I will say lots of them.
But I wasn&#39;t only talking about the influencial minority.
I think, (but it&#39;s only my own opinion based on what I&#39;ve seen) that jewish people are more undertaking than the average, they like to expand. And when you decide to expand, it may bother other people. This work when you&#39;re talking about economy or territory. Plus, as a wise guy named Billy Dean said, Money control the world, and jews are usualy rich people (They should publish statistics about that. But I think they never will, as some people will bich about it saying it would be racist).

@Media Slayer: I don&#39;t have anything specific against jews, I just think that anyone who has got too much money in this world is somehow guilty.