• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

isreali- paleistine (4 Viewers)

which do u support

  • isreali

    Votes: 49 44.1%
  • paleistine

    Votes: 37 33.3%
  • both in mutual existance

    Votes: 17 15.3%
  • u don't support a state bace on a religion

    Votes: 8 7.2%

  • Total voters
    111

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
JaredR said:
I just googled the above quote and it's interesting to note that the only sources I can find for it are new i.e. from the last 2 years or so and many are in fact on blogs, forums and other comment areas.
Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox, trans. Steve Cox (NY: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978), p. 99.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founding father of the Israeli right, made essentially the same point when he wrote, “Colonization is self‐explanatory and what it implies is fully understood by every sensible Jew and Arab. There can only be one purpose in colonization. For the country’s Arabs that purpose is essentially unacceptable. This is a natural reaction and nothing will change it.” Quoted in Ian Lustick, “To Build and To 50
Be Built By: Israel and the Hidden Logic of the Iron Wall,” Israel Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 1996), p. 200.


OMFG, did he just describe the existence of Israel as "COLONIZING"?
 

ari89

MOSSAD Deputy Director
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
2,618
Location
London
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
bigboyjames said:
PLEASE ari, your are total joke. why the fuck were they printed in the first place?

lol, freedom of speech. suck me off.
OH!

My mistake! It is OKAY to KILL PEOPLE because of PICTURES.

You are right...it is I who is the joke.
 

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ari89 said:
OH!

My mistake! It is OKAY to KILL PEOPLE because of PICTURES.

You are right...it is I who is the joke.
did i say its ok? did you read on your screen that i typed that up? so STFU.

your deviating from the question again. do you think it was ok for the cartoons to be printed in the newspaper? YES/NO --->why

i want to read your "freedom of speech" answer.
 

ari89

MOSSAD Deputy Director
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
2,618
Location
London
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
sam04u said:
I personally didn't react like that. If 1.4 billion muslims reacted like that, I think you'd know a little more about it. Some people just don't understand that you don't have a right to tell people what to do in their country e.g;(the rioters, Bush, Israel). But if you're a danish muslim (I don't know how many they have of those) peaceful protest and civil disobedience is a very acceptable means of protest. But like all protests, it takes a few miscreants to turn it into a riot.
But people did and you said 'HOW DID YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO REACT'. Obviously, you weren't talking about anything minor.

sam04u said:
Still, in context, those danish cartoons were highly offensive. Do you agree?
Nope. I find things such as Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Chris Ofili's excuse for art to be far more offensive yet no one was killed disagreeing with that etc.

Sorry, but I believe you people to be utter fucktards if you believe you have the right to kill/be violent (or in your cases justify violence) over pictures. You people are disgusting.
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
More news from the front:
Israel is stealing more water from the sub-human arabs. Yay!

ISRAEL’S “RIGHT” TO WATER – VS-
THE “SUB-HUMAN" ARABS

By: Peter Chamberlin

The following article by Stephen Lendman on the extreme water crisis in Israel and Palestine (Refuse to call Palestine “Territories”!) is a good place to begin to discuss the problem caused by Israel’s decision to take control of all available water. This creates a two-edged problem, one is the life-threatening thirst of the Palestinians (who are watching helplessly as Israel cordons off all available surface water and sucks the underground aquifers dry which feed Palestinian deep wells), the second, more critical problem that concerns the entire world, is Israeli belief in their inalienable right to demand from people whatever they want, because of some alleged “Divine Birthright.”
In this case, demanding all available water underneath Israel/Palestine, will become a demand for Lebanon’s water flowing through the Litani River whenever the water crisis in Israel hits predetermined “red lines.” Israel’s Lake Kinneret reservoir is within days of hitting the red line, where the pumps will not reach the water and further pumping would cause massive ecological damage. The coastal and mountain aquifers are getting so low that seawater is beginning to infiltrate them. Desalination plants, one of Israel’s proudest technological achievements, cannot be used for irrigation, because the filtering process also eliminates vital minerals, which stunts plant growth.
Anyone who studies Israeli history will know that the Zionist state will not go thirsty when so many “sub-human” Arabs in nearby Lebanon have plenty of the life-giving element. This water shortage represents a greater “existential threat” to Israel than Iran ever could. This may be Israel’s motivation for forcing the United States into picking a fight with Iran.
“The Chosen People” believe that their rights come directly from God and that He gave them “dominion” over every living animal, and Arabs are considered to be one of the lowest life forms. They think they have the right to demand what they want and the “sheeple” of the world have to give it to them. The Zionist beliefs of our own government have caused our leaders to bow-down before their masters’ commands. We are about to punish the world for refusing to bow to our dominant world masters, by nuking large areas of the Middle East to make Israel “safe” from the retribution of the millions of innocent people who have suffered because of previous Israeli demands upon the sheeple of the Earth.
If all of the people of the Middle East had acknowledged the modern state of Israel as “God Himself” upon this earth, then would it still have been necessary to kill a million or more Iraqis and God knows how many Iranians? Were all these casualties of “wars for Israel” simply the result of collateral damage to the advancement of the Zionist plan, or did the Israeli “Golem” just want to eliminate “X amount” of “useless eaters”?
The Zionist state faces one real “existential threat,” its imminent collapse, due to its corrupt foundation and the price to be paid for its criminal policies. This is the same “existential threat” we are trying to resist here in America today, our Nation too, is crumbling due to the corrupt Zionist model our leaders have forced us into.
Zionism was never a movement to save the Jews; it has always been a movement to enthrone the Jews over the entire human race. Neither Israel nor the Jews are God Incarnate on this earth; neither is the Pope. It is time this Nation and this world awoke from the spell cast by the purveyors of the “Chosen People” mythology. The Jews have no more of the One Creator within them than either you or I.
Drought, Israeli Policy Threaten West Bank Water
By Stephen Lendman
 

ari89

MOSSAD Deputy Director
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
2,618
Location
London
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
bigboyjames said:
did i say its ok? did you read on your screen that i typed that up? so STFU.

your deviating from the question again. do you think it was ok for the cartoons to be printed in the newspaper? YES/NO --->why

i want to read your "freedom of speech" answer.
Seriously, you and sam057 seem to get stupider by the post. WHY?!?!

My beliefs are being ruined. I thought people slowly got more intelligent or became more accustomed to social conventions such as interpreting words etc but you people do the reverse.

I don't know what to believe in anymore?!??!
 

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ari89 said:
But people did and you said 'HOW DID YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO REACT'. Obviously, you weren't talking about anything minor.



Nope. I find things such as Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Chris Ofili's excuse for art to be far more offensive yet no one was killed disagreeing with that etc.

Sorry, but I believe you people to be utter fucktards if you believe you have the right to kill/be violent (or in your cases justify violence) over pictures. You people are disgusting.
i think you’re a fucktard of the highest level. Your an absolute fucking jackass. You should go get "fucktard" printed on your forehead so whenever you walk into UTS everyone knows who the fucktard is.

who do you talk of when you say "you people". There is no doubt in my mind that the reaction of the Muslim world was unacceptable, barbaric, inhumane, and uncivilized. But why is the focus being shifted in the reaction but not on the components of what caused the reaction. Your fucking pathetic.
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ari89 said:
Sorry, but I believe you people to be utter fucktards if you believe you have the right to kill/be violent (or in your cases justify violence) over pictures. You people are disgusting.
Good ol' Ari89. Attacking straw people, because you can't find a valid answer to the questions or points put forward to you.

I'll repeat what I said previously in the hopes that you might, instead of spouting the same rubbish you usually do, respond in a proper format as is expected netiquette, and just debating principles in general.

Given that anybody with a reasonable understanding of Islam knows, that Islam prohibits the artistic portrayal of all figures, in particular religious figures. Is it then understandable, that the artistic portrayal, of arguably the second most relevant figure in Islam, the 'last prophet' as a terrorist, would be offensive?

And also, given that muslims in Europe have been under siege in the media, in literature, and in international politcs. Is it also reasonable to assume, that such a provocative piece of art would evoke protests and civil disobedience? which inevitably can result in violent protests?
 

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ari89 said:
Seriously, you and sam057 seem to get stupider by the post. WHY?!?!

My beliefs are being ruined. I thought people slowly got more intelligent or became more accustomed to social conventions such as interpreting words etc but you people do the reverse.

I don't know what to believe in anymore?!??!
fuck, is that your answer?
 

johnnydepp

Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
41
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2008
bigboyjames said:
i think you’re a fucktard of the highest level. Your an absolute fucking jackass. You should go get "fucktard" printed on your forehead so whenever you walk into UTS everyone knows who the fucktard is.

who do you talk of when you say "you people". There is no doubt in my mind that the reaction of the Muslim world was unacceptable, barbaric, inhumane, and uncivilized. But why is the focus being shifted in the reaction but not on the components of what caused the reaction. Your fucking pathetic.
dude, you need to calm down.

what the danish cartoonist or whatever did was insensitive, i agree. However, it was not unlawful, unlike what the reaction of the muslim world was. Just my two cents, don't get too heated =)
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
johnnydepp said:
dude, you need to calm down.

what the danish cartoonist or whatever did was insensitive, i agree. However, it was not unlawful, unlike what the reaction of the muslim world was. Just my two cents, don't get too heated =)
I agree with everything you said, except where you included the reaction of a few as the "reaction of the muslim world". I'm a muslim, (as you can clearly see from my signature :shy:) and I didn't react violently or in a way that can be considered "unlawful".

I consider the art work to be immoral, regardless of whether it was lawful or not. I'm pretty certain that in Australia, such an art work would be illegal under discrimination, or religious intolerance, or some other such law put in place to protect people.
 

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
sam04u said:
And also, given that muslims in Europe have been under siege in the media, in literature, and in international politcs. Is it also reasonable to assume, that such a provocative piece of art would evoke protests and civil disobedience? which inevitably can result in violent protests?

The anti-Muslim hatred which was at the centre of the cartoon row is also fucking disgusting. Nothing more to be said about this, other than Muslims in Europe today are facing the same fucking situation as Jews faced in the 1920s. All you have to is go and collect the vicious barbaric talk about Muslims, in print, video and in peoples speech, if you just substitute Jew for Muslim, and you fucking start to see how the groundwork for the Holocaust was laid in Europe.

yet at the same time, the same europe holds its head high about morals, freedom, no discrimination blah blah blah shit talk.
fucking hypocrisy at its best. and frankly, if know one can see this hypocrisy they should be shot dead on the spot. lol. joking
 
Last edited:

ari89

MOSSAD Deputy Director
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
2,618
Location
London
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
sam04u said:
Good ol' Ari89. Attacking straw people, because you can't find a valid answer to the questions or points put forward to you.
Sounds like you got me confused with yourself.

What I want is for you to say"SHIT, THAT WAS WRONG". Not tippy toe around any form of condemnation.

Given that anybody with a reasonable understanding of Islam knows, that Islam prohibits the artistic portrayal of all figures, in particular religious figures. Is it then understandable, that the artistic portrayal, of arguably the second most relevant figure in Islam, the 'last prophet' as a terrorist, would be offensive?
I gave my answer. What more do you want?

Me to say that everyone elses rights are subordinate to the will of an ideology loosely followed by 1/6th of the world?

And also, given that muslims in Europe have been under siege in the media, in literature, and in international politcs. Is it also reasonable to assume, that such a provocative piece of art would evoke protests and civil disobedience? which inevitably can result in violent protests?
Yes, Saudi Arabians had a right to go insane, riot, and attack Danish workers because of some nasty articles written by British tabloids. Nice story.
 

ari89

MOSSAD Deputy Director
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
2,618
Location
London
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
bigboyjames said:
i think you’re a fucktard of the highest level. Your an absolute fucking jackass. You should go get "fucktard" printed on your forehead so whenever you walk into UTS everyone knows who the fucktard is.

who do you talk of when you say "you people". There is no doubt in my mind that the reaction of the Muslim world was unacceptable, barbaric, inhumane, and uncivilized. But why is the focus being shifted in the reaction but not on the components of what caused the reaction. Your fucking pathetic.
Typical bigboyjames bullshit.
 

ari89

MOSSAD Deputy Director
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
2,618
Location
London
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
bigboyjames said:
typical of ari89 to avoid the question....
I didn't know a post of bullshit and insults was a question. Please point it out to me.
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ari89 said:
Sounds like you got me confused with yourself.

What I want is for you to say"SHIT, THAT WAS WRONG". Not tippy toe around any form of condemnation.
No, I'm pretty sure watching you evade such an obvious question and then responding to what I did not say (attacking a straw person) is doing just that, attacking a straw person.

What I want you to say is "SHIT, THAT WAS WRONG", in publishing that image which would inevitaby have evoked an unfavourable response and disgust amongst muslims. But you wont, you wont because you think it was okay, you think it's okay to offend people, unless ofcourse it's your people, or people you are sympathetic too (which obviously excludes the sub-human muslims).

I gave my answer. What more do you want?
Atleast some condemnation of what if you read the text, is extremely easy to see why it would be offensive. The art work infact had no other purpose other than to offend. Somewhat similar to the first pieces of propoganda used to villify and portray Jews prior to the Holocaust.

Me to say that everyone elses rights are subordinate to the will of an ideology loosely followed by 1/6th of the world?
What right exactly? The right to offend people unfairly, immorally?


In order for me to condemn the reaction of a few, you have to condemn the original sin. The obvious offences of publishing an image of the 'last prophet of Islam' in itself an offence, and moreso portraying the 'last prophet' as a terrorist.

From just a very basic understanding of Islam, you should see why that is the case. Don't defend the indefensible.

Edit:
Just another point. Muslims have never drawn Jews with big noses, horns and swastikas. Infact, Islam considers the artistic portrayal of all figures to be "haram" or a sin.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)

Top