[mojo2]

THE JEWS TOOK NO ONE'S LAND

by Joseph Farrah [WorldNet Daily]
November 19, 2002

As the most visible Arab-American critic of Yasser Arafat and the phony "Palestinian" agenda, I get a lot of hate mail. I've even received more than my share of death threats. Most of those who attack me -- at least those who bother to get beyond the four-letter words and insults -- say I just don't understand or have sympathy for these poor Arabs who were displaced, chased out of their homes and turned into refugees by the Israelis.

Let me state this plainly and clearly: The Jews in Israel took no one's land.

When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th Century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted. By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland -- the Promised Land Moses and Joshua had conquered millennia earlier. Christians and Jews believe, on the direct orders of G-d. That's not to say there wasn't always a strong Jewish presence in the land -- particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.

A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, or whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews. "The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they were forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property," the book states. Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don't blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.

Winston Churchill observed in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population was increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region -- one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war -- not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism. In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps -- not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers. Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as vitual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.

This is modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab famiiles from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone -- one of a series of lies and myths that have the world on the verge of committing yet another great injustice to the Jews.

http://www.internationalwallofprayer...Ones-Land.html

I agree with this.

[voodoo]

Aha... another rule 8 violation by aberdeenwriter.

V

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Aha... another rule 8 violation by aberdeenwriter.

V

Well, now!

Blind, too?



And you said there is no child left within you at all! Tsk, tsk. Little v(d)oodoos shouldn't tell fibs.

[hey!_Zeus]

I second the rule violation.

Besides in the article it says "they conquered" which makes it really dumb.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

I second the rule violation.

Besides in the article it says "they conquered" which makes it really dumb.

Are you seconding the supposed notion that I violated Rule 8?

Or are you seconding the idea that I shouldn't violate Rule 8?

Or are you seconding the the idea that I should violate Rule 8?

Or are you seconding the idea that I did not violate Rule 8?

Or are you trying to also violate Rule 8?

Hey! Confusing!

[Volanges]

This seems to have quite different population figures for 1922 and 1935.

[Big Mac]

Who cares about Rule 8? Does Rule 8 even make any sense? If someone posts something from another source without comment, should not it be assumed that said individual agrees with the views posted?

[Chuckit]

It is difficult to carry on a conversation with a chain of quotes. If you just want to quote Ann Coulter endlessly and not converse, Get A Blog™.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It is difficult to carry on a conversation with a chain of quotes. If you just want to quote Ann Coulter endlessly and not converse, Get A Blog™.

You have an obsession for her. There wasn't a single Ann Coulter reference in this thread until YOU brought it up!



I don't blame you. She's quite fascinating the more you listen to her or read her.

[Chuckit]

ZOMG it's almost like I was reading another thread right before this one. I'm craaazy obsessed.

[mojo2]

Here's a gift for your devotion to Ann.

Jewish World Review August 3, 2006 / 9 Menachem-Av, 5766

What I did on my summer vacation

By Ann Coulter

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

Dear Readers: I hope you're enjoying your summer so far. How I wish I could join you at the beach, by the pool, or out at the ranch clearing brush. Unfortunately my summer has been spent promoting my new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

If you've ever wondered what it would be like to be on tour promoting a book — and, honestly, who hasn't? — it's like being on a long, low-budget vacation with all of the good parts taken out. Except, of course, that I occasionally get to meet wonderful people like you who read my books, which makes it more than worthwhile.

Being on a book tour also means answering questions such as the following, which were left out of a Baltimore Sun article due to length. I hope you enjoy my responses, and look for me in fine bookstores everywhere this summer.


Q: The last time we spoke, you told me you're routinely misquoted by newspaper reporters. What are a couple of the more egregious examples? Why does this happen?

A: It happens so much, I don't even keep track of it anymore. The last one I remember was when I said "cutting the tax rate on capital gains seems to have increased tax receipts for fiscal 2006, just as supply-side economics predicted it would." It came out in the paper as, "I worship Adolf Hitler and share all of his goals, especially the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish problem.'"


I have no idea how it happens, given the strict objectivity and rigid nonpartisanship of the American media.

Q: The mainstream press is in economic trouble. Any comments on how they're reacting?

A: They are reacting with the same hysterical leftism that drove readers away in the first place.

Q: Bill Keller said The New York Times published the Swift banking story because of the public's right to know. Do you think he thinks that? Why did he publish it? What is the job description of a metro daily newspaper editor?

A: I don't like it when people ask me if I meant what I said or wrote, so I'll take him at his word and assume that he really means what he said: that anyone who reads The New York Times, including our enemies, is entitled to information about secret government programs being used to track terrorists, which means he's either (a) a complete moron or (b) a traitor.


An editor's job is to edit, which should not be confused with "to release sensitive information that can help the enemy during a war."

Q: Why is abortion sacrosanct to the left? Why have Democrats chosen this as their hill to die on? Why is evolution so important to liberals?

A: Because they basically want to depopulate the world of human beings, hence their love of abortion and their commitment to a belief system that does not distinguish men from lower beasts.

Q: Have you encountered anyone on the left who has read "Godless" carefully and was willing to debate its points with you? How'd it go? Have any critics addressed the content rationally? If so, what did you think? If not, do you find it amusing?

A: Only one: Michael Eric Dyson. The rest just want to talk about why my skirts are so short and why I'm "mean." It's almost as if my critics are avoiding the issues I write about in the book.

Q: Does Hillary Clinton have a good chance in 2008? What are her strengths and weaknesses? What did her reaction to your "Jersey girls" comments tell you about her as a potential candidate?

A: Good chance of what? Coming out of the closet? I'd say that's about even money. Her strength is her first name; her weakness is her last.

Q: Any comments on ...

A: Joe Biden: See my remarks on Neil Kinnock.


David Gregory: The man with no principles, no credibility and no last name.


Kofi Annan: That guy? Isn't he on the ground fighting with Hezbollah?


Katie Couric: The affable Eva Braun of evening TV.


Tony Snow: Cool guy.


Tom DeLay: How does Tom "soon to be acquitted and re-elected" DeLay grab you?


Rush Limbaugh: First runner-up for Mount Rushmore.


Joe Wilson: You mean Valerie Plame's clueless hubby? Whatever happened to that moron?


Dan Rather: Reports of his contrition are greatly exaggerated.


Cynthia McKinney: One of the most intelligent Democrats in the country.

Q: Any other wild, hippie-esque practices we should know about?

A: You mean other than the fact that I live in a filthy van with a dog, a gentleman I refer to as "my old man" and our daughter "Diversity Seagull," and we make our living weaving hemp baskets? No, not really.

Q: How would your career be different if you looked like Molly Ivins?

A: I'd be a lot uglier.

Q: Now that the "Slander/Treason/Godless" trilogy is finished, what's your next big project?

A: Finishing this interview. What are you, writing a book or something?

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter080306.php3

[goMac]

I love your sig Mojo. I even took the time to read the post you link to. My response is roughly this:



Anyway, my take is that this article, is kind of like the article you link to claiming the world maybe possibly could end on the 22nd. It's kinda a reach. The Palestinians were there in numbers. This isn't even usually a point of contention with the Jewish people I know.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Here's a gift for your devotion to Ann.



http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter080306.php3

Too long; didn't read.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac

I love your sig Mojo. I even took the time to read the post you link to. My response is roughly this:

Powerful response indeed. We should just give up now.

The Palestinians were there in numbers. This isn't even usually a point of contention with the Jewish people I know.

I'm a Jew. I guess you know me to some extent. So now there's an exception to the statement you just made, I suppose. Moreover, I'd have to assume that all the Jews you know personally are self-hating low-lives who are Jews in name only.

(mojo2, I cleared my PM box.)

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

I love your sig Mojo. I even took the time to read the post you link to. My response is roughly this:

[img]http://homepage.mac.com/gomac/captainhype.jpg

Anyway, my take is that this article, is kind of like the article you link to claiming the world maybe possibly could end on the 22nd. It's kinda a reach.

Thanks! Actually, the contention that on August 22nd the Iranians may detonate a nuclear device on Israel or the US or over water or somewhere is kind of analogous to the Palestinian claim to the land in that no matter how much we debate it won't be settled without proof, without the evidence at hand.

Sometime before 00:00:01 on August 23, 2006 we'll have all the evidence we'll need. Either they'll explode a nuke by then or they won't. We'll all know the truth.

And just like the case of the Aug. 22nd speculation, the truth about Palestine will only be known, one way or another, by looking at the evidence at hand.

But contrary to the popular belief the Palestinians promote to the world to support their claim that the land is theirs and that the Jews or Zionists have illegally and unfairly displaced them and that the Israelis have absolutely no claim to this land, that they are total trespassers, the evidence is already available to set the story straight.

There is absolutely no question that the evidence is on hand and available to anyone who wishes to avail themselves of it.

Except there is a problem with availing oneself of the truth in this matter. The problem is that the truth is messy. It has become unpopular to promote the truth because there are now millions of people who are invested -- to one degree or another -- in perpetuating a lie.

This lie was originally offered as a way to legitimate what is, at the core, nothing more than three campaigns.

1. To obey the Koran which instructs Muslims they should never lose possession of land once it is theirs.

2. The persecution of Jews.

3. Obtaining for themselves a homeland which was unattractive, uninhabitable or worthless land before the blood, sweat, tears and money of the Zionists turned it into something of value, without expending the same effort or resources themselves as the Jews had.

And so the popular belief, even among most Arabs and Muslims, is that the lie is true.

And that is a testament to the power of truth and the dangers of lies that when a lie is told often enough and for long enough that it can almost become the truth and the power of a truth is that if truth is on your side often without anything else, you can hold off armies.


And that is what is going on in Lebanon right now. Hizb Allah exists to help further one, two or all three of the aforementioned goals. And the only way they can stand against Israel and the world is because the lie told so often and for so long has almost become as powerful as the truth.

But what about the truth that is the Israelis?

There is something in their character which prevents their using the truth which is on their side as persuasively as the Palestinians wield the lie, which is their only hope to achieve their goals.
Maybe the Jews believe they must suffer. Maybe their sense of modesty or decorum prevents standing up for themselves as though to do so would be to cheapen what should be obvious.

An honest man lets the truth speak for him. A con man spreads his lies on every doorstep.

The evidence of the Israelis truth exists on many levels and over the span of many years and on several bases. And that is one of the messy things about the truth. There are so many real truths which would invalidate the Palestinians' lies that they are diluted in debate. Each simple truth can be watered down by a counter claim which can't be easily disputed or even settled. And the debates can, have do and will go one indefinitely with no clear cut winner.

And that is the goal of Palestinian debate on this matter. To confuse, to obfuscate, to change subjects, to split hairs, to cloud the issue with appeals to emotion such that many good people are left to decide based only on their gut feeling.

And therein lies the power of the Palestinian strategy. An emotional appeal is all that is needed to clinch the sale. In the contest for hearts and minds it is the hearts that matter most and it is what the Palestinians have relied upon for 50+ years, the compassion of Americans and others.

We have been swayed by the suffering of the Palestinians and our compassion has resulted in an outpouring of money and resources and good will and advocacy in support of the Palestinian cause.

That tangible outpouring of support, early on and continuing to this very day, convinced the Palestinians that they had themselves a winning strategy. And so they poured it on. Until now when we find out for the first time (thank God for the internet and satellite news networks) that the materials being used to sway our emotions in the Palestinians' favor has been manufactured.

In fact, the whole Palestinian existence has become a cottage industry of intentional poverty and suffering in order to win their final three goals.

Originally Posted by goMac

The Palestinians were there in numbers. This isn't even usually a point of contention with the Jewish people I know.

You are right. There WERE numbers of Palestinians in the disputed area. And while I believe there are many different winning arguments to be made using different time periods and evidence, I will concentrate on one which is without dispute.

The points of contention that any fair minded person might agree is true can vary greatly due to the degree that said person or persons have bought into the lies and emotional appeals that have go on for so long in support of the Palestinians. Your friends might believe the k=lie just as millions of others believe the lies.

It is not surprising.

But here is the indisputable truth of the matter and without need to understand anything before it or anything after it, if you look at this one bit of evidence you will see that the land of Israel belongs to the current occupants and all claims to the contrary are attempts to circumvent justice.

Here is the evidence.

The League of Nations (the highest legal body on Earth) mandated there be a homeland for the Jews.

The United Nations (the highest legal body on Earth) recognized the state of Israel.

In defensive wars the Israelis captured enemy territories and incorporated those lands into their nation.

End of story.

No need to go back thousands of years. No need to understand any of the arcane events and population patterns or dredge up census data.

We are in defense of democracy from attack by Muslim jihadists around the world who would invalidate ANY right by man to create his own laws or vote for those laws or the candidates chosen secularly.

But in the case of the Palestinian claim to Israel the heart of their dispute rests on the idea that the League of Nations was WRONG because only Allah can decide.

And that the United Nations was WRONG because only Allah can decide.

And that because Allah had dictated the law regarding Muslims posessing the land (even for only 100 years out of 3,000) even when Israel won the land through rights of the victor of war it STILL was WRONG because Allah had already decided that the Jews had no right to the land.

This is nothing more than and nothing less than a refusal by a group of people to obey what was and remains a legal decision by the highest legal entities on Earth to decide on these matters.

The Palestinians are in opposition to the United Nations. In effect, the Palestinians are in opposition to the rest of the world.

And the only reason they have been allowed to continue their opposition, which otherwise would justify a worldwide coalition of military forces to go in and quell this insurrection, is because the Palestinians came upon a winning strategy early on to manipulate us and make us like it. They have played us for the fool and some of us love the role.

This is an example of why the War on Terror is so important to fight now instead of waiting until it closes in on the USA. There are people who continue to be fooled by the media manipulation and the emotional appeals.

They want the land because Allah says they should have it. They may say anything and everything else, but the bottom line is that the land belongs to Israel and Palestinians refuse to obey man's law.

Allah says they shouldn't obey man's law.

June 15, 2006

Fitzgerald: Obey those Infidel laws
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on the slippery Sistani fatwa:

In the various Muslim websites of the "Ask Mr. Fatwa" or www.islam-online type, one of the Most Frequently Asked Questions from Muslims living in the Lands of the Infidels is: "Do I have to obey the laws of these Infidels"?
The answer given, very gingerly, is: "You may obey any laws of the Infidels that do not contradict Islam."

The clear implication is that you have no duty to obey the laws of the Infidel nation-state in which you have been allowed to settle or in which you live, none at all, if those laws somehow are seen to contradict Islam.

And this, of course, is how those Muslim websites, in English, give advice now, after having become well aware that Infidels are monitoring them. Since all Muslim groups are keenly aware of the need to watch out for those pesky prying Infidels, they do not go on to spell out all the ways in which Infidel laws -- manmade laws, laws that are made without reference to Allah, the sole source of authority, of legal and political and every other kind of legitimacy for a Believer -- are flatly contradicted by the Shari'a.
Nor is it only a question of laws, of the kind that regulate some areas of behavior through norms and sanctions. Islam offers a Complete Regulation of Life. It goes far beyond what any non-Muslim legal system does.

Furthermore, outside the hearing and viewing of those Infidels, another attitude and other kinds of advice are given by at least some clerics. The hukm (not fatwa, I was recently reminded) against Rushdie is a clear call to commit murder, as a righteous and rewardable act, by a Muslim or Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels. That has the full weight of Muslim (Shi'a) authority.

Many Muslims appear to regard the Lands of the Infidels as, by right, theirs -- they need only wait, and wait, for the right demographic changes. Bruce Bawer describes a Muslim cleric in Norway telling his followers that they could steal as they wished from the Infidels, for this was not theft -- it was helping themselves to the Jizyah that they had every right to demand. That attitude, that it is licit, even admirable, to take the property, or have one's way with the women, of the Infidels, is certainly reflected in the criminal statistics in every single European country, where Muslim crime kicks the beam. If 70% of the rapes in Scandinavian countries are committed by Muslims who make up 2-3% of the population, is one not entitled to draw certain conclusions? If 50% or more of the prisoners in France are Muslim when they make up 10% of the population, yet Islam supposedly offers them those family values and stability that Muslim groups like to talk about when pretending they have something, anything, in common with "conservatives" (see the sly appeal, for example, by the young Turk -- not Young Turk-- Mustafa Akyol), are we supposed not to notice?

What is most telling, what is most amazing, what must never be forgotten, about the Sistani fatwa is that Muslims living in the West are being told, in the view of uncomprehending and misreporting Infidels, by a cleric living in Iraq, that they may, that they should, obey the laws of Canada if they live in Canada, but only insofar as Muslim values are "not ridiculed." This is really a milder, clever version of the statement to be found every day at Muslim websites in answer to queries from Muslims Who Want to Know: "You may obey the laws of the Infidel land in which you happen to live [seldom is the particular country specified -- why should it be? What does that distinction matter to Muslims?] as long as those laws do not contradict Islam in any way." Al-Sistani's formulation -- you should obey the local laws of the local Infidels [in this case those of Canada] "insofar as Islamic values are not ridiculed" is softer in expression, with possibly just a little leeway in that phrase "Islamic values" rather than the flat-out appeal to the Shari'a.

But here we are. 2006, and in Canada, some are pleased that a cleric who lists as "unclean" or "najis" at his official website "blood, spit, excrement, semen and Infidels" should be hailed for his "moderation" and his generous concession. How nice of him to tell Canadian Muslims who follow his views that they should, whenever "Islamic values are not ridiculed," take the trouble to obey those Infidel laws, of that Infidel state of Canada.

No doubt Canadians should be grateful to Al-Sistani. How nice of him, and how nice of those Muslims in Canada who will heed him, and try to obey those laws -- just so long, of course, "Islamic values are not ridiculed." And that formulation, of course, depends on just how thin-skinned and quick to take offense Muslims are -- we saw the mass riots and boycotts and threats of murdering every single Dane, the reaction to the publication of twelve largely anodyne cartoons. What else might be taken to offend or violate or "ridicule" Islamic values?

At least Sistani did not say, as Muslim clerics and individual Muslims have said (in Norway as mentioned above and elsewhere), that they are entitled to take property from the Infidels as Jizyah due them. At least he did not say they could do what they wished with those Western women, whose dress apparently makes some Muslims conclude that they deserve what they get (see the "Lebanese" -- i.e. Lebanese Muslim -- gang rapes in Sydney a few years ago).

Worse and still worse.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011843.php

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Who cares about Rule 8? Does Rule 8 even make any sense? If someone posts something from another source without comment, should not it be assumed that said individual agrees with the views posted?

Yeah it makes sense. It makes people avoid lazy posting and trolling because they have to put at least *some* of their own effort or creativity to make the post.

It is a good rule, perhaps one of the best.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Well, now!

Blind, too?



And you said there is no child left within you at all! Tsk, tsk. Little v(d)oodoos shouldn't tell fibs.

It's ok, the most self-rightous and the preachers never think they break rule 8 when spreading the gospel. You're blind like so many others. A pity, because your thread might have become an interesting discussion if you had followed rule 8.

Then again, perhaps you don't care. You're just preaching, so discussion doesn't really enter into your agenda, does it?

A refreshment of rule 8 is needed I think. You clearly don't understand it.

Eighth rule of the Political Lounge: No posting and running. Give an opinion, your slant, anything in regards to what you're posting. Simply posting a news story and no context or direction is not conducive to fostering discussion. Avoid it.

Ok, now you've read it, we can break it down:

* No posting and running. Give an opinion, your slant, anything in regards to what you're posting.

That means, no posting other people's opinions, saying you agree and go away. That is in no way an 'opinion' because it defaults to the crap you quoted. What is being asked for is *your* interpretation of the quote. Your slant. Anything *except* just rubber-stamping it with something inane like 'I agree' and running away.

* Simply posting a news story and no context or direction is not conducive to fostering discussion.

This is exactly what you did. Also, you did post and run and you did not offer any kind of personal interpretation, slant or anything. Rule 8 can be partially broken or completely violated.

You completely violated it and knowingly. This is the third instance in a very short time. You've been reported, reproached and hopefully reprimanded already.

Stop it. You're hurting the forums.

V

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by voodoo

* No posting and running. Give an opinion, your slant, anything in regards to what you're posting.

He stated that he agreed with the post. He remained in the thread to counter arguments. This is no Rule 8 Violation.

That means, no posting other people's opinions, saying you agree and go away.

That is not at all what Rule 8 claims. So... it's a violation because you think it is???

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

He stated that he agreed with the post. He remained in the thread to counter arguments. This is no Rule 8 Violation.


That is not at all what Rule 8 claims. So... it's a violation because you think it is???

I agree. I don't see a rule #8 violation because mojo2 provided an opinion, therefore, giving a direction to a (potential) debate.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

He stated that he agreed with the post. He remained in the thread to counter arguments. This is no Rule 8 Violation.

That is not at all what Rule 8 claims. So... it's a violation because you think it is???

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I agree. I don't see a rule #8 violation because mojo2 provided an opinion, therefore, giving a direction to a (potential) debate.

Thanks to both of you for pointing out what should be obvious to everyone who's NOT bent on attacking me.

voodoo, you provide a glimpse of what is meant by the Chinese proverb:

“He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself”

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Thanks to both of you for pointing out what should be obvious to everyone who's NOT bent on attacking me.

voodoo, you provide a glimpse of what is meant by the Chinese proverb:

Although I still believe you did not violate rule #8, your lenghty posts are your greatest weakness, and I bet 90% of the people in this forum don't bother read more than the first and last paragraph.

There is a limit in long argumentations: ideas need to be clear, succinct, and to the point. Sometimes you get it right (does not mean we should agree with you though), but sometimes, your shorter interventions are condescending. When you use long argumentation, we just lose interest; that is certainly my case. The shorter ones just trigger similar condescending reactions.

Arguing with very long quotes is not efficient, and leaves doubts on your understanding (or your hability to communicate) your ideas. This is not meant to be insulting; I sincerily hope you will take this constructively. I do believe the "Right" has excellent arguments to provide, or at least, are workable, arguable. But long quotes create disinterest and adverse reactions, understandingly.

I certainly not mean for you to follow my example, but I thought some feedback would be interesting for you to get.

Cheers.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I agree. I don't see a rule #8 violation because mojo2 provided an opinion, therefore, giving a direction to a (potential) debate.

Not at all. There is no opinion made with saying 'I agree' and no direction of discussion even hinted at.

Behold:

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

I agree.

V

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Not at all. There is no opinion made with saying 'I agree' and no direction of discussion even hinted at.

Behold:



I agree.

V

I agree with you in the sense that his opinion is vague, superficial, and difficult to deal with; hence my comment related to a "potential" debate.

It was an opinion nevertheless. Totally unworkable, yes, and you've got to know mojo2 to "get it", otherwise, it is almost totally meaningless. But in the context of this forum, its vague and relative-to-mod rules, it is an opinion. As a matter of fact, this thread, if it gets closed, would be closed rather because of its metacommucative quality, rather than for the violation. I could be wrong, of course.

I invite a mod to state an opinion on the matter.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Seems to me the people who smokescreen the most like 5 year olds over freakin' "rule 8 violations" (not even remotely the case here, anyway), do so because they simply can't mount any argument against the topic, and so hope to shut it down. This thead seems a classic example.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Although I still believe you did not violate rule #8, your lenghty posts are your greatest weakness, and I bet 90% of the people in this forum don't bother read more than the first and last paragraph.

There is a limit in long argumentations: ideas need to be clear, succinct, and to the point. Sometimes you get it right (does not mean we should agree with you though), but sometimes, your shorter interventions are condescending. When you use long argumentation, we just lose interest; that is certainly my case. The shorter ones just trigger similar condescending reactions.

Arguing with very long quotes is not efficient, and leaves doubts on your understanding (or your hability to communicate) your ideas. This is not meant to be insulting; I sincerily hope you will take this constructively. I do believe the "Right" has excellent arguments to provide, or at least, are workable, arguable. But long quotes create disinterest and adverse reactions, understandingly.

I certainly not mean for you to follow my example, but I thought some feedback would be interesting for you to get.

Cheers.

I recognize your suggestions as constructive feedback and I thank you for them. I have many shortcomings as a person and a poster. You are kind in not shining a light on all of my weaknesses.

I will keep in mind the need sometimes to take extra pains to edit my posts to a smaller size.

But, just to share why this is a problem for me, I see these posts as a litter of puppies and the ideas contained within as the individual puppies that are all precious. How can I recommend one while knowing you could love another from the same litter just as much, or maybe more?

I believe we all post according to our OWN appetites and tastes and the bottom line is that as much as I may want to change to make every one of my posts pleasing to your tastes I can only, reliably and primarily self reference, while keeping your feedback in mind but only as a secondary priority.

Thank you for the feedback and I hope to find a happy home for every one of my puppies.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Not at all. There is no opinion made with saying 'I agree' and no direction of discussion even hinted at.

Behold:
I agree.

V

Off Topic.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Seems to me the people who smokescreen the most like 5 year olds over freakin' "rule 8 violations" (not even remotely the case here, anyway), do so because they simply can't mount any argument against the topic, and so hope to shut it down. This thead seems a classic example.

I agree!

If someone wanted an example of MY words (as though they were soooo special) they could look to post number 3087462.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post3087462

Yet, no one is offering any substantive debate or comment on anything but the Rule 8!

Thanks for pointing out the smokescreenery!

[Volanges]

Too much cutting and pasting. Make some original points.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Volanges

Too much cutting and pasting. Make some original points.

Hey, these ideas don't grow on trees!

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post3087462

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Seems to me the people who smokescreen the most like 5 year olds over freakin' "rule 8 violations" (not even remotely the case here, anyway), do so because they simply can't mount any argument against the topic, and so hope to shut it down. This thead seems a classic example.

There is no topic. There is no discussion. There is no point. Only a violation (third or so in a row) of the forum rules.

V

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Seems to me the people who smokescreen the most like 5 year olds over freakin' "rule 8 violations" (not even remotely the case here, anyway), do so because they simply can't mount any argument against the topic, and so hope to shut it down. This thead seems a classic example.

Do you know what a rule 8 violation is? It's a failure to make an actual statement or argument.

[mojo2]

Ok voovoo and cluckit, please stop your derailing tactics.

The jews took no one's land because it was GIVEN to them.

[Spliffdaddy]

after a lengthy absence, voodoo shows up - only to get *smacked down*.

Then proceeds to make a half dozen posts unrelated to the topic...complaining that somebody else isn't posting about the topic.

just like old times around here.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

after a lengthy absence, voodoo shows up - only to get *smacked down*.

Then proceeds to make a half dozen posts unrelated to the topic...complaining that somebody else isn't posting about the topic.

just like old times around here.

I think he is acting silly and just trying to derail or get the thread locked.

So, if he were to derail or get this thread locked, I'd start a similar thread but with an unexplored angle. And he'd try his tactics again.

And then I'd have proof he was acting maliciously and he'd get a warning. And if he did it again he might earn himself a vacation.

As for me, I'm just trying to discuss the topic.

Does anyone think the Muslims should be given a free pass because they refuse to recognize MAN'S law?

That's exactly what's been going on in this Israeli-Palestinian dispute all along.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

after a lengthy absence, voodoo shows up - only to get *smacked down*.

Then proceeds to make a half dozen posts unrelated to the topic...complaining that somebody else isn't posting about the topic.

just like old times around here.

And how is your post relevant, if not to flater your ego?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Ok voovoo and cluckit, please stop your derailing tactics.

*smells the air*

Yup, this smells of the awful discussion tecniqe of Atef's Corpse. Justr more repressed.

Boring times.

V

[Chuckit]

Whether or not Voodoo and I were trying to derail this thread (I don't recall trying to do so), Abe and Spliffdaddy are certainly helping just as much.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I think he is acting silly and just trying to derail or get the thread locked.

So, if he were to derail or get this thread locked, I'd start a similar thread but with an unexplored angle. And he'd try his tactics again.

And then I'd have proof he was acting maliciously and he'd get a warning. And if he did it again he might earn himself a vacation.

As for me, I'm just trying to discuss the topic.

Does anyone think the Muslims should be given a free pass because they refuse to recognize MAN'S law?

That's exactly what's been going on in this Israeli-Palestinian dispute all along.

Man, you puppies are sick. Terminal I might add.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mojo2

..I'd start a similar thread but with an actual angle, topic or point so I don't break the rules of this forum, like I agreed to when I joined.

...you mean

Originally Posted by mojo2

And then I'd have proof he was acting maliciously and he'd get a warning. And if he did it again he might earn himself a vacation.

Does that mean you've been given a warning by the admins? Congratulations! You deserve it. Feel free to start as many threads you like, just follow the rules.

Threads like this are about nothing, for no one. The serve only as a flame-bait or a waste of electricity and time. That is why there is a rule against them. That's why the next thread you start will respect rule 8.

If there was a thought behind this thread, then you would have done well to express it to begin with.

V

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Man, you puppies are sick. Terminal I might add.

Is that a physical threat?

You can be banned and arrested for that.

[Pendergast]

Oh, brother...

[mojo2]

The Jews are in their land which was awarded them at around the same time the state of Jordan was created from land mandated to the Zionists.

Why don't the Palestinians fight the Jordanians?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Oh, brother...

No kidding. I don't know whether to or

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The Jews are in their land which was awarded them at around the same time the state of Jordan was created from land mandated to the Zionists.

Why don't the Palestinians fight the Jordanians?

The Palestinians tried. Hence Black September.. You know that, of course.

V

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by greenG4

No kidding. I don't know whether to or

I ask that we not give the derailleurs any more attention. There are important points to be discussed.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by voodoo

The Palestinians tried. Hence Black September.. You know that, of course.

V

And they shifted their efforts to the Israelis and got MUCH more worldwide 'traction' for their campaign.

After all, it's the Jews!

And who doesn't hate THEM?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And they shifted their efforts to the Israelis and got MUCH more worldwide 'traction' for their campaign.

After all, it's the Jews!

And who doesn't hate THEM?

You asked and I answered. I have no real opinion either way on what the Palestinians have chosen to do.

V

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by voodoo

You asked and I answered. I have no real opinion either way on what the Palestinians have chosen to do.

V

It was a rhetorical question/statement.

[aristotles]

What is rule 8? Thou shall not challenge commonly held dogma?

[Spliffdaddy]

No idea what 'Rule 8' is. I never bothered to read the rules.