The point is there isn't a Palestinian state, there are Palestinian territories. (like the Louisiana Territory before there was a Louisiana state) There has been talk about creating one, but I don't see any peace process working as long as Palestinians work for the destruction of Israel. Any borders will be violated, as history has proven. The 1967 borders weren't enough to prevent the Six-Day War. Going back to those borders will only weaken Israel and make them more vulnerable to attack. It doesn't further the goal of peace. Hamas (meaning Islamic Resistance Movement) governs the Gaza Strip and has stated they are committed to the destruction of Israel. This isn't just about various countries arguing over borders. At it's core, it's a clash between Judaism and Islam. That's not a conflict I see being solved by moving a border. As long as Jews exist in the region, there will be conflict.
Your point is there are Palestinian territories and not a state?? ummm OK, depends on who you ask I guess.
You don't see any peace process working as long as Palestinains work for the destruction of Israel? I would agree that THOSE who don't recognise Israel's right to exist are probably not going to be open to peace just as those who don't recognise the right to the people of Palistine to have a land of their own will be open to a peaceful co-existance.
If you are saying that it's a conflict that will never be solved as there will always (as there have always been) Jews in the region, then are you saying why bother?
I don't think either side can claim innocence in terms of the conflict in the region, that's why finding a starting point towards talking towards a peaceful settlement is important IMO.
Newf, the Palestinians lived there, but they never had control of the land. It was the British who owned it, and before them, it was the ottoman empire. The Palestinians are claiming rights to land that never belonged to them.
Newf, the Palestinians lived there, but they never had control of the land. It was the British who owned it, and before them, it was the ottoman empire. The Palestinians are claiming rights to land that never belonged to them.
hahaha classic. Yeah...why would they claim any rights to it?
Your point is there are Palestinian territories and not a state?? ummm OK, depends on who you ask I guess.
You don't see any peace process working as long as Palestinains work for the destruction of Israel? I would agree that THOSE who don't recognise Israel's right to exist are probably not going to be open to peace just as those who don't recognise the right to the people of Palistine to have a land of their own will be open to a peaceful co-existance.
If you are saying that it's a conflict that will never be solved as there will always (as there have always been) Jews in the region, then are you saying why bother?
I don't think either side can claim innocence in terms of the conflict in the region, that's why finding a starting point towards talking towards a peaceful settlement is important IMO.
Mmm. Classic. Ignore history except where it supports one side of the equation.
I've asked before, and no one wants to answer--Where do you draw the line on claims to past "ownership" of lands?
War has a way of drawing that line for ya, which is why it is prefeable to argue from a position of strength rather than weakness.
Israel's claim is from that position of strength with or without support from anyone else. Palestinians claim is and always has been from a position of weakness, even with the entire Arab world behind them. To the victors go the spoils--been that way since the dawn of man, and will continue to be so untill the planet grows cold from a faded sun.
Obama can say whatever he wishes--but those words don't mean squat anywhere in the Mideast--and precious few other places as well. Israel will not give up any land it deems neccessary for it's common defense---it's already seen what happens when it has declared enemies right on it's flanks. I don't see anyone else in the mideast clamoring to give up any of their territory to provide this Palestinian state either. Kinda odd huh?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-21-2011).]
Originally posted by newf: So if the wars with Israel had resulted in the taking of it you would be fine with that?
Sure--why wouldn't I be. If I accept that it is ok (and I do) for the nation I call home to be legitimate (as well as the nation you call home) because we defeated the previous "owners", it would be more than a little hipocritical of me to throw that aside in regards to the Medeast. Ya can't have it both ways--sorry.
quote
My point is that many Palistinians were displaced by the formation of Israel and I think they are entitled to have a land to call their own just as the Jewish people have in Israel. In fact I have always found it ironic as I would think the Israeli's of all people would understand such a desire for a homeland.
Again, AFAIK this was meant to be a starting point towards peace talks as it has been a long held idea that the 1967 borders WITH agreements to section certain land masses. Is it the best solution? I don't know but with many negotiations both or one side is pretty against with what a mediator has to say at first but that is used as a starting point.
Oh, your point is and always has been very clear, but it IS a point steeped in at least a little hypocrisy, as well as a point that is moot. I'm pretty sure, that you would expect your nation to put up a fight (in every sense of the word) if another entity decided to press an old claim for Newfoundland, and also suspect, that Canada as a whole would ridicule any call from a US president for you to submit to said claim, I also believe you would also agree you and your countrymen aren't about to just walk away fron Newfoundland or anywhere else, just because some group from the distant past were displaced by those currently in control of the frozen north. You 'might or might not" be willing to incorporate them and their culture into your own, but walking away? You know THAT ain't gonna happen. You can claim you and your govt will go down the negotiation/diplomacy route, but in the end, if it comes to it, Canada will shed somebody's blood before they give valuable lands back to anyone. Your partners in the Commonwealth thought the same way when the Falklands dispute came up, and that was a dispute that wasn't even about anyone's homeland, just a few islands out in the south Atlantic..
you guys first Newf, have Canada give up original lands to the defeated natives up there, we'll do the same, etc. before you know it, we'll be granting land rights to people we traced back to tribes when they ruled the lands. If you play this false game of ownership rights, then every nation on earth would have to forfeit their current borders and statehood. The way the world works is.....you fight for ownership of land, and keep it as long as you can secure it. France almost lost their rights to a nation, but we helped them secure it back. Who did lose their nation?....oh, czechoslovakia. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of displaced people after the collapse of the USSR. They fought it out, and now we have current states today like Georgia and the Czech Republic.
The middle east is no different. If they didn't like the British Empire, they could have fought it out with them. Like it or not, the British had every right to grant land to who they wanted, it was theirs to give. Now, after the Jews took the land, they had to defend it, which they have done ever since. You want to cry about that? well....you going to be crying a long time because this has been the history of the world since day one.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 05-21-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:26 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22710 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I've seen you make claims before and then when pushed to provide proof come up short. I'm sure you believe what you are saying but that doesn't mean facts bear it out.
Remember now you said thousands of companies taken over by the Obama administration. So I would assume you mean that these companies are now being run by the U.S. government in some capacity or have the U.S. Gov't as majority share owners. I honestly don't know if you are correct in these claims and am unwilling to just take your word for it unless you are some kind of authority on the matter or have some verifiable facts.
So you have NO COMMENT whatsoever about the links I posted? All which are majority owned by the government (through stock our outright), and where all the board of directors were elected by the administration, and are either union officials or politicians, or friends of politicians?
You have no comment about that?
Ally Financial, AmeriCredit, etc??? No comment at all?
Oh, your point is and always has been very clear, but it IS a point steeped in at least a little hypocrisy, as well as a point that is moot. I'm pretty sure, that you would expect your nation to put up a fight (in every sense of the word) if another entity decided to press an old claim for Newfoundland, and also suspect, that Canada as a whole would ridicule any call from a US president for you to submit to said claim, I also believe you would also agree you and your countrymen aren't about to just walk away fron Newfoundland or anywhere else, just because some group from the distant past were displaced by those currently in control of the frozen north. You 'might or might not" be willing to incorporate them and their culture into your own, but walking away? You know THAT ain't gonna happen. You can claim you and your govt will go down the negotiation/diplomacy route, but in the end, if it comes to it, Canada will shed somebody's blood before they give valuable lands back to anyone. Your partners in the Commonwealth thought the same way when the Falklands dispute came up, and that was a dispute that wasn't even about anyone's homeland, just a few islands out in the south Atlantic..
I'm confused by your arguement.
Who are you comparing comparing an "entity" deciding to press an old claim to Newfoundland to? I'll assume that you mean the Innu tribes or Native Indians. If so you might want to look at the land claims they have and what they have control of.
As for ridiculing a U.S. president in terms of comparing it to Mid-East Peace talks, there is a long history of U.S. mediation so how this particular speech is something new I have no idea.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So you have NO COMMENT whatsoever about the links I posted? All which are majority owned by the government (through stock our outright), and where all the board of directors were elected by the administration, and are either union officials or politicians, or friends of politicians?
You have no comment about that?
Ally Financial, AmeriCredit, etc??? No comment at all?
I can comment I suppose. I noticed that one of the first companies you mentioned was CitiGroup which as far as I can tell WAS partially owned by the U.S. Government but since then has sold their remaining stock at a profit.
You seem to be commenting about GM mostly and not the thousands of companies that you mentioned first. I'm certainly not going to be shocked that GM and some of it's companies are owned in part by the Gov't but you did say thousands like the Gov't has been snapping companies up in a bid to conrol as many as possible, I would just like to see some verification of that claim.
you guys first Newf, have Canada give up original lands to the defeated natives up there, we'll do the same, etc. before you know it, we'll be granting land rights to people we traced back to tribes when they ruled the lands. If you play this false game of ownership rights, then every nation on earth would have to forfeit their current borders and statehood. The way the world works is.....you fight for ownership of land, and keep it as long as you can secure it. France almost lost their rights to a nation, but we helped them secure it back. Who did lose their nation?....oh, czechoslovakia. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of displaced people after the collapse of the USSR. They fought it out, and now we have current states today like Georgia and the Czech Republic.
The middle east is no different. If they didn't like the British Empire, they could have fought it out with them. Like it or not, the British had every right to grant land to who they wanted, it was theirs to give. Now, after the Jews took the land, they had to defend it, which they have done ever since. You want to cry about that? well....you going to be crying a long time because this has been the history of the world since day one.
You seem to be missing the point. Where is it I said that Israel had to give up all their land? I only have stated that I believe the displaced arab people who as far as I know are now called Palastinians deserve a homeland like most other peoples. As for the exact borders and such, that's a tougher issue and one I believe that Obama was trying to begin a conversation about with his speech.
Again see if you can follow, I support the Iraeli's and a Jewish homeland but I also think the people who were displaced by the formation of that nation deserve to be recognized and have a homeland of their own as well. As for the claims of the same areas, that's what negotiations are for.
IP: Logged
10:24 AM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 35848 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: I'm confused by your arguement. As for ridiculing a U.S. president in terms of comparing it to Mid-East Peace talks, there is a long history of U.S. mediation so how this particular speech is something new I have no idea.
Well, HIS statements were not Mid-East Peace talks. HIS, desire, is to appear as the greatest President in American History. His thoughts could have come after a peace/beer summit. He stacked the deck, he acted stupidly. Introducing something stupidly new. That they continue to bow down to terrorism more since they have not bowed down enough. Speaking of displaced people, and, speaking of finding fault with Nobama, how do you feel about those displaced bond and debt holders that Nobama threw to the way side ?
Well, HIS statements were not Mid-East Peace talks. HIS, desire, is to appear as the greatest President in American History. His thoughts could have come after a peace/beer summit. He stacked the deck, he acted stupidly. Introducing something stupidly new. That they continue to bow down to terrorism more since they have not bowed down enough. Speaking of displaced people, and, speaking of finding fault with Nobama, how do you feel about those displaced bond and debt holders that Nobama threw to the way side ?
Good God like the Middle East isn't tricky enough you want to talk about the financial crash. If you just want to hear me find fault with Obama's leadership there are lots of things he has done that I haven't agreed with but I usually have a reason for it besides just hating or fearing the other side like some seem to.
IP: Logged
10:55 AM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: ..................I only have stated that I believe the displaced arab people who as far as I know are now called Palastinians deserve a homeland like most other peoples...................
Do they? Why?
There has never been a nation of Palestine. They have never had or maintained a 'nation' with specific borders. Why should a group of migrant nomads, which includes people from numerous lands, be able to claim part of another nation as their own?
Why haven't their own people provided 'homeland' for them? Why can't they assimilate within the lands of their own peoples?
It would be a good thing to understand who the 'Palestinians' are before declaring that they should have part of another nation's lands as their own.
quote
Who are the Palestinians? Around 1900, less than 100,000 people lived in what is called "the West Bank" with a signifcant Jewish population [1] The "native" population of Gaza numbered only 80,000 in 1951.[2]
The "Palestinians" (actually a collection of migrant workers) have streamed into the West Bank and Gaza from Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.
The "Palestinians" are only part of the larger problem of stateless, citizenshipless people in the Middle East. There are millions of mixed ethnic background, including Kurds, Hindus and others, that migrate throughout the Middle East. In the case of the "Palestinians" an ill-defined subgroup of this migrant population has been given a name and "history" and is being used as a tool against Israel.
Over 250 small Arab settlements have been founded in the West Bank since 1950. Anyone who has visited the West Bank knows that the housing in these Arab settlements is cinder-block and poured concrete - testimony to their recent construction. The Israeli government admits that it has allowed over 240,000 day workers to enter the West Bank through the border with Jordan since Olso - only to have them stay in the West Bank as Arab settlers. The actual numbers are probably higher.
If hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrant workers are flooding into the West Bank & Gaza, why should Israel be required to provide them jobs? In fact the reverse, by supporting their economy while these people refuse (or are prevented) from accepting Israeli or Jordanian citizenship, Israel is only attracting more migrant works. Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the last year expelled over 1,000,000 citizenless migrant workers.
Lest anyone think that these are all "Palestinians", let me remind you what the definition of a "Palestinian" is - according to the United Nations, anyone spent TWO YEARS in Palestine before 1948, they and their decendants - with or without proof or documentation - are "Palestinians". This definitions was specifically designed to include migrant workers.
[1] Many in the Gush Eztion - Hebron area, but in other areas as well - including Shechem and Jericho.
In my book, "The Everlasting Hatred, the Roots of Jihad," I trace the history of the people now being called the "Palestinians." The land of Israel became known as Palestine after the Roman destruction of Israel in A.D. 70. It was ruled by many different invaders for the following 19 centuries.
In the 7th century, the Muslims took control of Palestine for the first time. From A.D. 635 until 1917, the Muslims ruled it, with only a few interruptions by the European Crusaders. During that span of time, the land was reduced to total desolation. Many people who traveled the land in the 19th century remarked on the fact that Palestine was as desolate as the moon and very few people lived there.
In 1867, Mark Twain remarked about his visit to the Holy Land in his book, "The Innocents Abroad." He lamented, "Stirring scenes occur in the valley [of Jezreel] no more. There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for 30 miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride 10 miles hereabouts and not see 10 human beings."
By all eyewitness accounts of that era, Palestine was a total desolation. There were virtually no trees and no people. Because of lack of trees, the weather changed and it rarely ever rained. The irrigation systems of the once fertile valleys were all destroyed, rendering most areas into malaria-ridden swamps. The terraces of the mountainsides were torn down, causing terrible erosion that left only barren rocks. This was the condition of Palestine by the beginning of the 19th century.
It was at this time that Jews began to flee severe persecutions in Russia and Eastern Europe. In the mid-1800s, some Jews came to Palestine and, with the generous aid of some successful Jews like the Rothschilds, began to buy property from Muslim Ottoman Turks. The Muslims thought the land was worthless anyway, so they sold it to the "dumb Jews" for extremely inflated prices.
To everyone's amazement, the Jews were very successful at reclaiming the land. Many of them died from malaria and the rigorous life the work demanded, but they performed an agricultural miracle that made the land very productive again. As a result of their success, poor migrant workers from the surrounding Muslim countries began to flood in to work for the Jews. The Jews literally became victims of their own success – almost all of the people calling themselves "Palestinians" today are the descendants of those migrant workers.
Much more is said and documented on this subject in my book. But the main point is this: The Muslims have repeatedly shown they understand these things. Since they know that the so-called "Palestinians" are not a homogeneous people, but rather a mixed conglomerate of workers with no cohesive organizational or political skills, they have repeatedly not given them a state.
When the Hashemite Tribe, who were rulers over Mecca and Medina for centuries, were driven out by the Saudis, the British gave them control over the vastly greater numbers of "migrant workers" in Trans Jordan. The British said this would be, in effect, "The State of Palestine." Instead, the Hashemites, who make up only about 20 percent of the population, turned it into their own kingdom and called it the Kingdom of Jordan.
When the Jordanians and Egyptians controlled the so-called West Bank and the Gaza Strip for 19 years (1948 to 1967), there was never a thought of giving the disorganized mass of "migrant workers" a state. Why? Because they knew there was no cohesive, homogeneous people known as "Palestinians."
The current efforts of Jordan and Egypt (and all the rest of the Muslim Middle East nations) to give these same people a state is clearly a ploy to get a foothold inside Israel. It is a strategic accommodation to establish a base from which the final assault against Israel can be made. What they couldn't do militarily is now being facilitated through the United States and the E.U.
Muslims will never accept a permanent presence of infidels in what they claim is sacred Islamic soil. Especially Jewish infidels for which the Koran reserves its most vehement condemnations. In their minds, the Koran and Allah will not let them accept Jews in what they view as their third holiest site.
The United States had better learn these things, or we will find ourselves guilty of facilitating the destruction of God's people, to whom the Word of God says the land belongs forever. God will not let that happen, but He will certainly judge those who have any part in trying to do it.
God warned: "Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Surely I have spoken in My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom [Arabs], who took MY LAND to themselves as a possession, with whole-hearted joy and spiteful minds, in order to plunder its open country ... But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, for they are about to come.'" (Ezekiel 36: 5, 8 NKJ)
Why can't Detroit be proclaimed as 'Palestine'?
I see trouble brewing on our southern border.
IP: Logged
11:10 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35848 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: ... I usually have a reason for it besides just hating or fearing the other side like some seem to.
Hating. Funny that. The Palestine's do, in the most evil incarnation, hate the Jews. No hate here. Nor even fear. I don't fear something that I can stand up against. My, analogy of the financial crash, is not hate. Aside that Nobama co-opted GM, displacing legitimate lenders and even company bond holders who actually were supposed to have a vote, my analogy is apt for your argument.
IP: Logged
11:12 AM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
The Palestinian Authority passed a law last month granting all PA residents and Israeli Arabs imprisoned by Israel for terror crimes a monthly salary, Palestinian Media Watch reports.
According to PMW, the PA has defined by law which residents and Israeli Arabs would be deemed "prisoners" as "Anyone imprisoned in the occupation's [Israel's] prisons as a result of his participation in the struggle against the occupation."
In other words, all PA residents in Israeli prisons for terror crimes are officially added to the PA payroll. According to the definition in the PA law, PA car thieves in Israeli prisons will not receive a salary, but Hamas and Fatah terrorist murderers will.
The PA also gives a salary to Israeli Arabs convicted of terror crimes against Israel - the country of which they are citizens. PA benefits to Israeli Arab terrorists, in fact, are greater than the ones extended to PA resident terrorists.
Additionally, those serving more than 20-year sentences will receive a greater PA salary than prisoners serving shorter sentences, the new PA law establishes. Salaries are to be paid from the day of arrest until release.
More than 6,000 Palestinian prisoners are currently serving time in Israeli prisons for terror-related offenses, PMW says.
Among those now eligible are Abdullah Barghouti, serving 67 life sentences; Hassan Salameh, serving 38 life sentences; and Jamal Abu Al-Hijja, serving nine life sentences, all of whom are imprisoned for planning suicide bombings - three terrorists PMW recently reported as being called "heroic" by the official PA daily.
Who's Paying?
emphasis mine: You're gonna LOVE THIS!
quote
PMW noted the new PA law stipulates that payment of salaries "will be implemented... on the basis of available sources of funding." When the PA is short of cash for salaries, the salaries to the prisoners will be cut.
The PA has reported that the US, the EU, France, Britain, Ireland, Norway, Japan, India and the World Bank have all given money to the PA for its general budget in 2010-2011.
Such direct funding could be part of the "available sources" for terrorist salaries, or could free money elsewhere in the PA budget that could be used for these salaries, PMW says.
The list provided by PMW is not exhaustive as it relies solely on reports in the official PA daily. The PA receives financial aid from many other donors as well.
Recently, the EU announced the transfer of 45 million euros to the PA for salaries: "Some EUR 45 million of the funds from today's decision will go towards salaries and pensions of vital workers, mainly doctors, nurses and teachers."
In November 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the transfer of an additional grant to the PA's general budget: "After the transfer of the $150 million, the sum which the American administration will have transferred as direct budgetary aid to the PA for 2010 totals $225 million."
Although the EU, US and other donors are not intentionally funding salaries for terrorists, PMW says, their funding of other PA salaries and the budget makes money available in the general budget to pay terrorist salaries.
This Palestinian Authority law was enacted before the recent Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement. It was published in the official PA Registry on April 13, 2011.
Founded in 1996, Palestinian Media Watch is an Israeli research institute that studies Palestinian society from a broad range of perspectives by monitoring and analyzing the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks.
I do. Just because many internet sites use the same story doesn't make it true, you seem to be missing that the story you are saying is fact is just the same story reposted on different sites. Quanitity does not equal quality.
Is there a chance that there is any truth to the story? Sure, but I suspect that the issue is far more in depth than that particular story and I would like to see more credible sources and corroboration before I just accept it as fact.
I like getting my news from what I consider more reliable sources but by all means continue to believe whatever it is you like.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-21-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:20 PM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
I do. Just because many internet sites use the same story doesn't make it true, you seem to be missing that the story you are saying is fact is just the same story reposted on different sites. Quanitity does not equal quality.
Is there a chance that there is any truth to the story? Sure, but I suspect that the issue is far more in depth than that particular story and I would like to see more credible sources and corroboration before I just accept it as fact.
I like getting my news from what I consider more reliable sources but by all means continue to believe whatever it is you like.
I agree, but it seems that when the story/source doesn't agree with your leaning, then it is biased and unacceptable.
Google search: "salaries for terrorists" About 4,410,000 results (0.06 seconds)
Google search: "Law of Prisoners, 2004/19 About 378,000 results (0.10 seconds)
Some of the resultant searches included quotes from the 'Law of Prisoners'
quote
"Anyone imprisoned in the occupation's [Israel's] prisons as a result of his participation in the struggle against the occupation." [Ch. 1 of Law of Prisoners, 2004/19, passed and published by the PA Chairman and Government, December 2004. The Prisoners' Centre for Studies,www.alasra.ps Accessed May 9, 2011]
It appears that your opinion is based upon and supported by a left leaning ideology. Where are the facts.
Demonstrate the right of the 'Palestinians' to the land. Demonstrate their 'peace loving attitude' toward Israel and its existence.
If you wish to stand on the claim that ALL my sources are biased, then you should backup your claim with evidence.
"You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."
It appears that your opinion is based upon and supported by a left leaning ideology. Where are the facts.
Demonstrate the right of the 'Palestinians' to the land. Demonstrate their 'peace loving attitude' toward Israel and its existence.
If you wish to stand on the claim that ALL my sources are biased, then you should backup your claim with evidence.
"You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."
You might want to inquire about the "righty" policies as well as many of them are exactly the same on this issue towards the right to Palestinians to have a homeland.
Back up my claims with evidence? You mean you don't think the links you provided were biased?
Some of the "facts" you seem to be believing aren't facts, they are Op-ed pieces.
I'm not sure what google results and times have to do with anything, maybe you should search "Santorum" and see if you think that quoting google results matters.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-21-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:23 PM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 35848 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: I like getting my news from what I consider more reliable sources but by all means continue to believe whatever it is you like.
Pray do tell. Which source do you use ? You haven't provided nothin'. Tell you what. Would you trust the Al Jazera news mongul ? News, Obama made news. We are talking history.
Pray do tell. Which source do you use ? You haven't provided nothin'. Tell you what. Would you trust the Al Jazera news mongul ? News, Obama made news. We are talking history.
Uh huh... I like to read sources such as Reuters, Associated press articles, BBC, and other major media outlets. Some have slight biases but when you can read the same subject matter from various reliable sources I find that helps. Most of the older news agencies still have journalistic integrity and attempt to hold each other accountable. I don't think the same can be said for internet blogs and opinion pieces that get picked up and regurgitated.
IP: Logged
01:37 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I like the way newf danced around the question about how he would view a claim on Newfoundland's land by natives who pre-date European settlers. If I could dance like that, I'd go for my own reality TV show.
So, newf, do you and your European ancestors have a solid claim to Newfoundland, or should the Maritime Archaics, the Dorset, Beothuks, and Inuit have a better claim to the land on which you live?
I like the way newf danced around the question about how he would view a claim on Newfoundland's land by natives who pre-date European settlers. If I could dance like that, I'd go for my own reality TV show.
So, newf, do you and your European ancestors have a solid claim to Newfoundland, or should the Maritime Archaics, the Dorset, Beothuks, and Inuit have a better claim to the land on which you live?
I answered it even though the correllation is faint between the two. Native peoples have their own land and rights and are even exempt to certain Canadian and Provincial statutes.
You'll be sure to point out the vast similarities between the Mid-East confrontations of Israeli's and Palestinians (furthermore Christians, Jews and Muslims) and their claims to the lands near Israel and Newfoundland.
I'll be waiting.
IP: Logged
01:48 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I answered it even though the correllation is faint between the two. Native peoples have their own land and rights and are even exempt to certain Canadian and Provincial statutes.
You'll be sure to point out the vast similarities between the Mid-East confrontations of Israeli's and Palestinians (furthermore Christians, Jews and Muslims) and their claims to the lands near Israel and Newfoundland.
I'll be waiting.
YOU missed the point. Would YOU be willing to give up YOUR land if a native person or group made such a claim? And no, it is NOT that different from the middle east situation, only the details. The principles are the same...WHO really has claim to the land, and how far/long does that claim last? Forever?
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
YOU missed the point. Would YOU be willing to give up YOUR land if a native person or group made such a claim? And no, it is NOT that different from the middle east situation, only the details. The principles are the same...WHO really has claim to the land, and how far/long does that claim last? Forever?
No you are trying to tie to totally different scenarios together to try and force a point.
Do you not think Native Americans should have any rights or land claims? Seems your Governments over the years have decided otherwise, so by your brilliant analogy you agree with a Palistinian homeland.
The arguement you are trying to make is a poor one IMO.
IP: Logged
01:56 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Why do all discussions involving newf end up with him saying his sources are valid, but any that disagree with his viewpoint must be biased? It's like trying to reason with a tree.
You can ignore every story about current events in the middle east and only read the history and it will tell you everything you need to know. When you have groups like Hamas that flat out declare their ultimate goal is the eradication of Israel, how do you make peace with that? What possible concession could Israel make that would be "enough?"
The peace process could very well make progress if the violence were to stop with current borders. Israel needs to have some reason to suspect Palestinians and neighboring states actually want peace and are willing to co-exist peacefully. Otherwise they have no incentive to do anything other than what they're doing. History has repeatedly shown that the Palestinian definition of "cease fire" is really more like "rearm and reload."
It's no surprise newf takes the pro-Palestine position, as he flies the "Republic of Newfoundland" flag. Much like the state of Palestine, there never has been a "Republic of Newfoundland." Newfoundland was a Dominion of the British Empire from 1907 to 1949. Prior to 1907 it was a British Colony.
IP: Logged
01:57 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Why do all discussions involving newf end up with him saying his sources are valid, but any that disagree with his viewpoint must be biased? It's like trying to reason with a tree.
Geez, I keep forgetting this about newf.
quote
It's no surprise newf takes the pro-Palestine position, as he flies the "Republic of Newfoundland" flag. Much like the state of Palestine, there never has been a "Republic of Newfoundland." Newfoundland was a Dominion of the British Empire from 1907 to 1949. Prior to 1907 it was a British Colony.
And before that, Portuguese, and before that a very long string of various native peoples. But none of that matters, of course, after The Crown claimed it, right newf?
Why do all discussions involving newf end up with him saying his sources are valid, but any that disagree with his viewpoint must be biased? It's like trying to reason with a tree.
You can ignore every story about current events in the middle east and only read the history and it will tell you everything you need to know. When you have groups like Hamas that flat out declare their ultimate goal is the eradication of Israel, how do you make peace with that? What possible concession could Israel make that would be "enough?"
The peace process could very well make progress if the violence were to stop with current borders. Israel needs to have some reason to suspect Palestinians and neighboring states actually want peace and are willing to co-exist peacefully. Otherwise they have no incentive to do anything other than what they're doing. History has repeatedly shown that the Palestinian definition of "cease fire" is really more like "rearm and reload."
It's no surprise newf takes the pro-Palestine position, as he flies the "Republic of Newfoundland" flag. Much like the state of Palestine, there never has been a "Republic of Newfoundland." Newfoundland was a Dominion of the British Empire from 1907 to 1949. Prior to 1907 it was a British Colony.
newf became quite miffed when that 5 letter word was recently applied. I won't say the word, but here is the definition:
quote
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
IP: Logged
02:01 PM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by newf: No you are trying to tie to totally different scenarios together to try and force a point.
Not at all. Every piece of land that is currently occupied everywhere in the world has changed hands at some point. So where and how do we decide claims over land?
quote
Do you not think Native Americans should have any rights or land claims? Seems your Governments over the years have decided otherwise, so by your brilliant analogy you agree with a Palistinian homeland.
You're right. The land that BOTH of us reside on was someone else's before us. I don't feel good about it, but it was probably inevitable that lands would change hands given growing human population, migration and exploration (not to mention conquerors). I don't like it, but I have to live with it.
quote
The arguement you are trying to make is a poor one IMO.
Only because you disagree with it, or cannot defend your position, I suspect.
Why do all discussions involving newf end up with him saying his sources are valid, but any that disagree with his viewpoint must be biased? It's like trying to reason with a tree.
You can ignore every story about current events in the middle east and only read the history and it will tell you everything you need to know. When you have groups like Hamas that flat out declare their ultimate goal is the eradication of Israel, how do you make peace with that? What possible concession could Israel make that would be "enough?"
The peace process could very well make progress if the violence were to stop with current borders. Israel needs to have some reason to suspect Palestinians and neighboring states actually want peace and are willing to co-exist peacefully. Otherwise they have no incentive to do anything other than what they're doing. History has repeatedly shown that the Palestinian definition of "cease fire" is really more like "rearm and reload."
It's no surprise newf takes the pro-Palestine position, as he flies the "Republic of Newfoundland" flag. Much like the state of Palestine, there never has been a "Republic of Newfoundland." Newfoundland was a Dominion of the British Empire from 1907 to 1949. Prior to 1907 it was a British Colony.
So you don't find the sources given biased? Make sure you answer that now.
Funny I don't remembere EVER saying I agree or support Hamas in any way but some like to do my thinking for me.
So do you not agree that peace and a Palestinian is the solution that has been attempted by many U.S. mediations and Presidents? Be sure to answer now.
Should I assume now that you think that all Palistinians are terrorists and should be jailed or killed and have no homeland?
Nice try but you seem to be ignorant to the flags importance to many Newfoundland people.
newf became quite miffed when that 5 letter word was recently applied. I won't say the word, but here is the definition: [QUOTE] One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
[/QUOTE]
Again, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word. please point out where I started an arguement and used names or strawman arguements or avoided the issue.
Only because you disagree with it, or cannot defend your position, I suspect.
Nope I defended it completely. In fact if you read I stated twice now that the Native tribes of Newfoundland have land claims. You know similar to what some Paletinians apparently want.
How about this. What is your position on a Palestinian homeland? Do you not think they should have any claim to one?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
(I'll wait until you consult with your usual sources to make up your mind for you)
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-21-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:13 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
So you don't find the sources given biased? Make sure you answer that now.
Which source. Make sure you answer that now.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Funny I don't remembere EVER saying I agree or support Hamas in any way but some like to do my thinking for me.
Funny, I don't see anyone EVER saying you support Hamas in any way. But you do like to become combative rather than answer questions.
quote
Originally posted by newf: So do you not agree that peace and a Palestinian is the solution that has been attempted by many U.S. mediations and Presidents? Be sure to answer now.
Be sure to understand what "mediation" is and how it's different from telling one country to do something. Mediation: an attempt to effect a peaceful settlement between disputing nations through the friendly good offices of another power.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Should I assume now that you think that all Palistinians are terrorists and should be jailed or killed and have no homeland?
What you should do has always had little impact on what you will assume. Your assumptions have never had any relevance to what others may think, so assume whatever you want. But if you can provide peer-reviewed evidence of me saying " all Palistinians[sic] are terrorists and should be jailed or killed and have no homeland" be my guest.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Nice try but you seem to be ignorant to the flags importance to many Newfoundland people.
I'm not interested in the flag's importance to you or other Newfoundland people. I was referring to it's legal history and the fact that no Republic of Newfoundland has ever actually existed. It would appear you're just upset because Obama has told Israel to give land to "Palestine" and hasn't told Canada to give the Republic of Newfoundland back to Newfoundlanders.
IP: Logged
02:22 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35848 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: Uh huh... I like to read sources such as Reuters, Associated press articles, BBC, and other major media outlets. Some have slight biases but when you can read the same subject matter from various reliable sources I find that helps.
I can see that some are giving you a bashing. Not trying to pile on but, in the interest of our discussion ... Rueters, Associated Press, the BBC would not be what I call reliable sources. Granted, they do report but, only what they want to. Decided by an Editor. Did you know that George Scouros has major holdings in (US) ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR (National Public Radio, an American news outlet) and other various outlets. You will find the same bias in all of these seemingly reputable sources. Al Jazera, should be a source that you look to for a difference of opinion. News sources need to be tested. News reporting, just like office holders, used to be for the greater good. It has been co-opted.
I can see that some are giving you a bashing. Not trying to pile on but, in the interest of our discussion ... Rueters, Associated Press, the BBC would not be what I call reliable sources. Granted, they do report but, only what they want to. Decided by an Editor. Did you know that George Scouros has major holdings in (US) ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR (National Public Radio, an American news outlet) and other various outlets. You will find the same bias in all of these seemingly reputable sources. Al Jazera, should be a source that you look to for a difference of opinion. News sources need to be tested. News reporting, just like office holders, used to be for the greater good. It has been co-opted.
Bah, no worries, it's a common theme here that anyone that has a differing opinion gets piled on by the usual suspects, most can't even seem to form an opinion on the topic itself.
As for all media being biased, how can you trust anyone is presenting facts if you believe that? Who do you look to for reliable news? I am not quite that cynical yet to believe that all sources are corrupt to the point where they skew everything.
The George Soros thing is debatable as far as I know. My understanding is the funding of these news outlets is not direct and comes with no mandate.
IP: Logged
02:36 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35848 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: Who do you look to for reliable news?
I love fishing, . Now, let me reel you in. Actions speak louder than words. History is my news source. News outlets are just commentary. History does not have to be ancient. My hate for Nobama does not come from his actions.
Originally posted by Formula88: Which source. Make sure you answer that now.
No problem, I am talking about PMW the original source for texasfieros articles.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Funny, I don't see anyone EVER saying you support Hamas in any way. But you do like to become combative rather than answer questions.
No you didn't say I supported Hamas however you did infer that one cannot support the Paletinian viewpoint because of Hamas. You then said it was no surprise I was taking a pro palestinian stance.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: Be sure to understand what "mediation" is and how it's different from telling one country to do something. Mediation: an attempt to effect a peaceful settlement between disputing nations through the friendly good offices of another power.
So are you saying that Obama was telling Israel and Palestine what to do?
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: What you should do has always had little impact on what you will assume. Your assumptions have never had any relevance to what others may think, so assume whatever you want. But if you can provide peer-reviewed evidence of me saying " all Palistinians[sic] are terrorists and should be jailed or killed and have no homeland" be my guest.
I was relating what you seem to be assuming about me to what someone could assume about you and how unfair it is to do so.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: I'm not interested in the flag's importance to you or other Newfoundland people. I was referring to it's legal history and the fact that no Republic of Newfoundland has ever actually existed. It would appear you're just upset because Obama has told Israel to give land to "Palestine" and hasn't told Canada to give the Republic of Newfoundland back to Newfoundlanders.
You are not interested but felt the need to research it and bring it up? Interesting I hope you actually learned something about my great Province. You've even felt the need to use the Provincial flag as your avatar, congrats Make sure you get it correct now it's Newfoundland and Labrador.
Upset because of what Obama said? Not in the least, in fact it's funny you say that as it's people being upset with anything Obama says that started this thread and another just like it. So if you can
news outlet
