Australian Testicles

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:50 pm

Can I intrest anyone in some Philtrum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philtrum

Phaedrus · Post by **Phaedrus** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:51 pm

BMC, turning the words around to reflect the other side is an often used trick that only sometimes works. The evenhanded, politically correct stance you are trying to take leaves you (and the rest of the western world) supporting murderers just to avoid potential racism.

Tell me, why are Isrealis forced to trade with European partners instead of within their geographic region? Why do Isreali soccer teams play in Europe instead of against their neighbouring countries (for the most part)? It is surely not because it's unsafe for Arab teams/fans to travel to Isreal.

The Isrealis have actually had the power to detroy the arabs, even wipe them out for decades, yet they haven't even tried. Yet (some) arabs are constantly trying to wipe Isreal out. They've even formed large militant groups dedicated to such purpose.

Given the prevalence of anti-semitism in Europe, even today, I am not surprised that many people choose to claim that both sides are equally guilty. The added bonus here is that they can simultaneously claim to be unbiased and politcally correct, and yet still screw the jews over. Another feature of this stance is that they get to be the nuanced, mature, educated individual, seeing both sides, etc...Then they can turn around and claim that anyone favouring one side is a simply a bigot who needs to expand their horizons. And bingo, right on schedule, you made this very claim.

I'm sure you won't appreciate my saying this, but you did claim to be trying to see a difference so I am pointing it out. I am certain you will counter with some strories of Isreali atrocities, or Jewish dominance of world affairs. Don't worry, I'm not saying anyone's perfect here. But I know which society would be more tolerant of me if I were forced to live there as an outsider.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:51 pm

niss wrote:
What does it matter? I thought the Jews control the media?

Do you deny Jewish and right wing Christians have enormous influence in the media?

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:56 pm

gasper wrote:

Israel has been told by it's MUSLIM neighbours that they will soon be driven into the sea, and then do you expect them to not defend themselves?

Defend themselves. You mean like transferring parts of its civilian population to live in war zones (occupied territory); a war crime!

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:57 pm

Dex wrote:
niss wrote:
What does it matter? I thought the Jews control the media?
Do you deny Jewish and right wing Christians have enormous influence in the media?

No, but I do feel its rather small minded to think that just because there happen to be people of a certain faith working in the media means that there is some global conspiracy.

I am sure the man who penned The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion is quite pleased with his legacy.

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:57 pm

I find it a bit funny, make that weird funny not haha funny, that the 'it's our country play by our rules' and the "Christian Men founded this country on Christian principals" crowd completely manage to over look the fact that Oz WAS inhabited prior to those Christian men arriving..... As was Canada, and South/Central America, Africa....

I love double standards.

stl

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:59 pm

Dex wrote:
gasper wrote:

Israel has been told by it's MUSLIM neighbours that they will soon be driven into the sea, and then do you expect them to not defend themselves?

Defend themselves. You mean like transferring parts of its civilian population to live in war zones (occupied territory); a war crime!

I would rather not see this decend into another debate about Israel/Palestinians, but to quickly address this:

There are many people who would like to see the settlments close, and there are many who would like to see them grow. Settlements are a road block to peace, not a war crime.

And I am sure he was referring to defending themselves like in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza now..

Lets not debate whether the defense was proportional or not, but just that they defended their borders.

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:01 pm

sky's the limit wrote:I find it a bit funny, make that weird funny not haha funny, that the 'it's our country play by our rules' and the "Christian Men founded this country on Christian principals" crowd completely manage to over look the fact that Oz WAS inhabited prior to those Christian men arriving..... As was Canada, and South/Central America, Africa....

I love double standards.

stl

Rules are written by those who die the least easiest.

Phaedrus · Post by **Phaedrus** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:02 pm

Dex wrote:

Do you deny Jewish and right wing Christians have enormous influence in the media?

In the US perhaps this is true. Although it must be noted that almost every Jewish media interest tilts democrat- not republican, so it's hard to connect them to the right wing.

In Canada and Europe, the media is prodominantly liberal, and very much anti-Isreal. Just watch the BBC, or even CBC to see this in action.

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:06 pm

"You do realise though BMC that traditionally of all the peoples coming out of the sandpit it is the Israelis who are usually more willing to assimilate and adopt local customs then many of their arab neighbours."

Tell that to the palestinians.

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:16 pm

"The Isrealis have actually had the power to detroy the arabs, even wipe them out for decades, yet they haven't even tried. Yet (some) arabs are constantly trying to wipe Isreal out. They've even formed large militant groups dedicated to such purpose. "

It was close in 67 (thank you kissinger) lebanon could have gone either way last year.

Reminds me of that southpark episode re: terry shaivo... "YOU WERE PLAYING GOD WHEN YOU PUT THE TUBE IN!"

JakeYYZ · Post by **JakeYYZ** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:21 pm

Dex wrote:
niss wrote:
What does it matter? I thought the Jews control the media?
Do you deny Jewish and right wing Christians have enormous influence in the media?

It’s way worser than that, DEX…. 12 Million Jews .. about 0.02% of the world population. .. yet they have received 178 Nobel Prizes!!! …coincidence!? I THINK NOT!!

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:21 pm

BoostedNihilist wrote:"You do realise though BMC that traditionally of all the peoples coming out of the sandpit it is the Israelis who are usually more willing to assimilate and adopt local customs then many of their arab neighbours."

Tell that to the palestinians.

Thank you very much for the best display in a while of answering a statement with a completely unrelated response.

I was saying that of all the emigrants from the middle east heading for western nations, the Israelis usually conform better to their surroundings due mainly to the fact that Israel is a westernized secularish nation. Many other emigrants from the other middle eastern countries are more prone to holding onto their traditions and rejecting those of their host country.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:21 pm

niss wrote:
I would rather not see this decend into another debate about Israel/Palestinians, but to quickly address this:

There are many people who would like to see the settlments close, and there are many who would like to see them grow. Settlements are a road block to peace, not a war crime.

Actually 145 countries including Canada believe Israeli settlements violate the Geneva convention Article 49. This would constitute a war crime.

This was voted on in the UN.
Resolution /56/61 10 December 2001

For: .... 145 countries

Against:
Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), United States of America

Abstaining:
Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:32 pm

Dex wrote:
niss wrote:
I would rather not see this decend into another debate about Israel/Palestinians, but to quickly address this:

There are many people who would like to see the settlments close, and there are many who would like to see them grow. Settlements are a road block to peace, not a war crime.
Actually 145 countries including Canada believe Israeli settlements violate the Geneva convention Article 49. This would constitute a war crime.

This was voted on in the UN.
Resolution /56/61 10 December 2001

For: .... 145 countries

Against:
Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), United States of America

Abstaining:
Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands

SECTION III

Occupied Territories

Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Art. 48. Protected persons who are not nationals of the Power whose territory is occupied, may avail themselves of the right to leave the territory subject to the provisions of Article 35, and decisions thereon shall be taken in accordance with the procedure which the Occupying Power shall establish in accordance with the said Article.

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Law is always subject to interpritation. Many have read that last part to mean that the state can not force their civilians to live in the OTs. It doesnt rule out voluntary migration. If it did it would say "The Occupying Power shall not allow it's civilian population into the territory it occupies." Until the law says that, its not illegal for people to volunatrily settle.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:38 pm

niss wrote:
Lets not debate whether the defense was proportional or not, but just that they defended their borders.

Defending their borders by transferring civilian citizens into war zones? I would call this cowardly, wouldn't you?

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:49 pm

Its a war zone now, right after 67 it was settling land that was won. It was establishing settlements as a buffer zone between enemies. Not cowardly, intelligent. You put settlements on your border to let the bad guys know you are there.

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:02 pm

You leave the computer for a couple of hours and look what you miss.

I'm not going to comment on any of the posts made against my earlier posts. I will say that some good points were made. As much as I like a good discussion, the subject of Israel is too emotional and rarely brings out the best in people.

I do not feel passionate, as some, about the plight of anybody in the sandpit. All sides are victims. All sides are innocent and all sides are guilty and it's the other guys responsibility to fix it.

As for assimilation into a culture, that's very interesting concept. In hard terms, what exactly does it mean? In my situation, I live in Switzerland. I'm Canadian. I live in a community with many cultures. I hang out with my Canadian and American friends. I have Swiss friends and certainly many work colleagues. I shop locally. I respect laws. I love the country and the people. I will always be a Canadian at heart. There is, though, a strong right wing voice in Switzerland that doesn't like immigration in a big way. The say immigrants do not assimilate. What do I have to do to please them? I speak French, the language of Swiss Romande. My kids go to school here. I participate on Swiss national day and buy their crap wine and delicious cheese. But, according to some, I don't assimilate.

My Swiss neighbor has never invited me into his house, or back yard. He knows I'm Canadian. What should I do to assimilate?

Going to back to some of the comments in this thread, there is wide open asssertions that complete ethnic groups do not assimilate. What does that mean? What do you want them to do exactly? I'm sure many of them work and pay taxes. I'm sure some of them are passionate about aviation. They will feel most comfortable with their own people who understand them.

To push the point further, I spend more time on avcanada than on any other site because I feel I am with my people.

The topic puzzles me because I am one of those strange people from another country, here to mooch off of a good thing in some people's minds.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:02 pm

niss wrote: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Law is always subject to interpritation. Many have read that last part to mean that the state can not force their civilians to live in the OTs. It doesnt rule out voluntary migration. If it did it would say "The Occupying Power shall not allow it's civilian population into the territory it occupies." Until the law says that, its not illegal for people to volunatrily settle.

Deport or Transfer. Deport is forcible transfer. If "Transfer" in article 49 had the condition of forcible, then it would read "forcible transfer". "Transfer" in no way implies forcible.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:09 pm

niss wrote:Its a war zone now, right after 67 it was settling land that was won. It was establishing settlements as a buffer zone between enemies. Not cowardly, intelligent. You put settlements on your border to let the bad guys know you are there.

You seem to be very selective in your interpretation of Geneva convention. Could you elaborate on the term "land that was won" in relation to the settlements and why specifically this would preclude the Geneva Conventions?

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:54 pm

What's that xsbank? You have a taint on your philtrum? Maybe you should get a nasal antimacassar.

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:59 pm

The Occupying force shall not transfer.

That to me is quite clear, the IDF (Occupational force) shall not take civilians and place them in the occupied territory. That doesnt mean that once the occupied territory is open civilians of the Occupational country do not have the right to move there of their own volition. Again if that were the case it would specifically say The occupational Force should not allow its citizens into the occupied territories.

The statement that the existance of the settlements are contrary to the geneva question is false. I am not denying that certain specific settlments might be illegal but not the settlements in general.

As long as the settlements were either started by the military or voluntarily set up by civilians and in both cases any civilian that is there is there by their own regard and not forced by the governing body it is a legal settlment.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:09 pm

Dex wrote:
niss wrote: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Law is always subject to interpritation. Many have read that last part to mean that the state can not force their civilians to live in the OTs. It doesnt rule out voluntary migration. If it did it would say "The Occupying Power shall not allow it's civilian population into the territory it occupies." Until the law says that, its not illegal for people to volunatrily settle.

Deport or Transfer. Deport is forcible transfer. If "Transfer" in article 49 had the condition of forcible, then it would read "forcible transfer". "Transfer" in no way implies forcible.

And to elaborate on this point; You will notice that "forcible transfer" was used in the first paragraph of Article 49 when it related to "protected persons". It is more than reasonable to assume, inarguable actually, that on the last paragraph of Article 49 as it relates to "it's own civilian population" when it refers to "Transfer" it in not way implies by force; or it would specifically say so as per the first paragraph of the Article.

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:54 pm

Niss Said

"I was saying that of all the emigrants from the middle east heading for western nations, the Israelis usually conform better to their surroundings due mainly to the fact that Israel is a westernized secularish nation. Many other emigrants from the other middle eastern countries are more prone to holding onto their traditions and rejecting those of their host country."

I hate to be the guy who whips out the dictionary but

Conform

1. to act in accordance or harmony; comply (usually fol. by to): to conform to rules.
2. to act in accord with the prevailing standards, attitudes, practices, etc., of society or a group: One has to conform in order to succeed in this company.

So how exactly would they be conforming? If they are moving from one westernised secularish state to another wouldn't they be moving into a state virtually the same? would it not just be status quo? That is to say that Isarelis are complicit with western ideals already. That is like saying 'well all the lebanese who move to syria are happy conformists."

lets take a look how well the Israelis have adapted to their 'homeland' being that they are surrounded by opposing nations, and are proving to be very devisive (I'm not blaming the division on Israel but there definitely is a division) how exactly would that make them more willing to conform to their broader surroundings? (certainly we can't argue that being muslim is not the prevailing standard of the mideast) I think to make this argument we would have to look at how well a Israeli migrant headed to say... Iran, would conform.

So.. Ask the palestinians

JakeYYZ · Post by **JakeYYZ** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:37 pm

xsbank wrote:The place between the whatnot and the whosis? Taint.

CID, are you female?

Girlyman, surely.