pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 07 Feb 2009 06:35:15
From: risky biz
Subject: For Joe Long
"On 11 October 1961 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion declared in
the Israeli Knesset:

'The Arabs' exit from Palestine...began immediately after the UN
resolution, from the areas earmarked for the Jewish state. And we have
explicit documents testifying that they left Palestine following
instructions by the Arab leaders, with the Mufti at their head, under the
assumption that the invasion of the Arab armies at the expiration of the
Mandate will destroy the Jewish state and push all the Jews into the sea,
dead or alive'.

Thus, Mr Ben Gurion is asserting that it is his perception that 1) there
were directions from the neighboring Arab states and the Mufti in
Jerusalem for the indigenous Arabs of Palestine to evacuate their homes
and lands on the promise that the Arab armies would destroy the nascent
Jewish state, and, further, 2) that those armies intended to "push all the
Jews into the sea, dead or alive". The phrase "push all the Jews into the
sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by
Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive
policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the
occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

It is a highly emotive phrase invoking images of the Holocaust, though
adapted to a Mediterranean setting.

Mr Ben Gurion gives no attribution for this phrase, nor does he claim that
it is a quote from an Arab source. It is expressed here as if it is his
personal surmise as to the Arab army's intentions.

The phrase has been variously attributed by Zionist supporters to Yasser
Arafat, Gamel Abdul Nasser, or any other of Israel's enemies, but none
whom I have challenged, including U S Congressman Henry Waxman who made
the claim in a letter to me, attributing the phrase to Nasser, have been
able to provide any documentation of support for their claim. This 1961
speech certainly predates Arafat's 1968 ascension to the head of the PLO.
The phrase is very much entrenched in the thinking of Israel supporters
and is taken as a factual basis for an Arab intent of Genocide and of
their own potential for peril.

The speech by Mr. Ben Gurion appears to be the origin of the phrase. A
search of the speeches of Gamel Abdul Nasser fails to reveal it, nor does
it reveal any other than a pragmatics approach to his dealing with Israel.
This phrase is sufficiently dramatic and threatening so that if it was in
fact uttered by a significant Arab leader, it would be prominent and
easily found in any competent historical treatment, which it is not. The
phrase, thus, has a Jewish origin and not an Arab origin. Mr Ben Gurion is
the originator of the phrase, in all likelihood."
http://www.counterpunch.org/martin03112005.html

-------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com





 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 14:07:04
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
> http://www.counterpunch.org/martin03112005.html

I love Muslims and do not know any Jewish people, but if I did I am sure I
would love them too.

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 22:40:48
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 11 2009 3:07 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > http://www.counterpunch.org/martin03112005.html
>
> I love Muslims and do not know any Jewish people, but if I did I am sure I
> would love them too.

I find it hard to believe that someone who lives in a city the size of
Detroit doesn't know any Jews.

______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 06:40:50
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
> I find it hard to believe that someone who lives in a city the size of
> Detroit doesn't know any Jews.

I guess it depends on the word 'know'. My woman is Muslim, her family,
some of her friends etc. I love them all. Good people. I have no
'friends' that are Jewish. I had an old boss who was Jewish who worked me
like a dog then fucked me and took my money. (swear to god true story. I
wrote about it on here many times before. The only reason I qualified the
statement was because it fits the Jewish stereotype.) I 'kind of'
considered him a friend at the time and was mad enough at one point at him
that is I saw him on the street I was sure I would kick his ass. That has
faded and now I think I would just shake my head and walk away.

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 09:02:36
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"John_Brian_K"

>> I find it hard to believe that someone who lives in a city the size of
>> Detroit doesn't know any Jews.
>
> I guess it depends on the word 'know'. My woman is Muslim, her family,
> some of her friends etc. I love them all. Good people. I have no
> 'friends' that are Jewish. I had an old boss who was Jewish who worked me
> like a dog then fucked me and took my money. (swear to god true story. I
> wrote about it on here many times before. The only reason I qualified the
> statement was because it fits the Jewish stereotype.) I 'kind of'
> considered him a friend at the time and was mad enough at one point at him
> that is I saw him on the street I was sure I would kick his ass. That has
> faded and now I think I would just shake my head and walk away.

I misunderstood what you meant by "know."

I wonder what else your woman might be besides "Muslim" ... is she a
convert? Since you say her family is also Muslim, I would guess that she
was raised in a Muslim family. How "strict" is her family and she, herself?
How strict are you in your religious belief?

You are in an interesting dynamic.




     
Date: 12 Feb 2009 08:13:58
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
> I misunderstood what you meant by "know."

np

> I wonder what else your woman might be besides "Muslim" ... is she a
> convert? Since you say her family is also Muslim, I would guess that she
> was raised in a Muslim family. How "strict" is her family and she, herself?
> How strict are you in your religious belief?

She was born to an asshole father who took the 'religion' of his faith a
little to strictly. Her mother is what you would probably call a
'religious rebel'. She does not converse with her father and is very
close with her mother. Most of the family are steadfast in the core of
their beliefs, but would be considered 'westernized Muslim'. Her father
no doubt does not approve of her relationship with me nor any of her other
previous relationships. He has been estranged since she was 11 or so.
Lebanese 'Muslims' typically are a little loser in certain dogmas with the
Muslim faith. There are a few older woman in her family that still cover
their hair, but 90% do not. Her uncle is married to a 'white woman' and
others in her family have married out of the religion.

Everyone in her family now knows about me, but in the beginning of the
relationship it was difficult coming to terms with what was really going
on. I was being kept a secret from a small portion of the family because
they would not 'approve'. She is an only child and only has her mother
for immediate family so in the beginning she was very cognizant of her
'extended families' opinions. She did not want to alienate herself
(although I doubt that would have happened, but she was a 21 year old
young woman when I met her still dealing with abandonment issues. No
doubt she looked at the situation differently) neither one of us discuss
religion nor do we 'practice' our religions. When we have children we
will let them decide what if any religion they will follow. We will
instill a moral code, and everything that goes with being a good person,
but are not going to 'force' any of our loosely held beliefs on them.

> You are in an interesting dynamic.

Not really. No PeePee! THERE is an interesting dynamic. I have theories
on him and wish him well.

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 12 Feb 2009 12:47:05
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"John_Brian_K"

> Everyone in her family now knows about me, but in the beginning of the
> relationship it was difficult coming to terms with what was really going
> on. I was being kept a secret from a small portion of the family because
> they would not 'approve'. She is an only child and only has her mother
> for immediate family so in the beginning she was very cognizant of her
> 'extended families' opinions. She did not want to alienate herself
> (although I doubt that would have happened, but she was a 21 year old
> young woman when I met her still dealing with abandonment issues. No
> doubt she looked at the situation differently) neither one of us discuss
> religion nor do we 'practice' our religions. When we have children we
> will let them decide what if any religion they will follow. We will
> instill a moral code, and everything that goes with being a good person,
> but are not going to 'force' any of our loosely held beliefs on them.
>
>> You are in an interesting dynamic.
>
> Not really. No PeePee! THERE is an interesting dynamic. I have theories
> on him and wish him well.

Still a very interesting dynamic. She may be a little young for you ... and
a tab bit inexperienced.

What will you base this "moral code" on that you will teach your children?
It should be interesting for you and the mother of your putative children.
I do wish you well. I also agree that Paul is an interesting fellow. I
still would like to get that beer and meet him. Someday.

But you are in a quite interesting dynamic yourself. Keep us posted on the
progress. Again, I wish you the best.

I was going to put in a Muslim quotation about "peace" and came upon this
site:
http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Peace.Islam

Not a very pleasant list.

Then I found this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

But then this:
http://islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/islamic_peace_train.htm

This was more encouraging:
http://www.muslimpeacemarch.org/

I have a lot more reading to do.




  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 17:32:17
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"John_Brian_K"

> I love Muslims and do not know any Jewish people, but if I did I am sure I
> would love them too.

I know what you likely mean, but you way of saying it leaves a little to be
desired.

I am sure you "know" some Jews and you probably know some Jehovah's
Witnesses too.




   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 06:36:33
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
> I know what you likely mean, but you way of saying it leaves a little to be
> desired.

?

> I am sure you "know" some Jews and you probably know some Jehovah's
> Witnesses too.

Not like THAT I don't. To think of it my old boss was Jewish. I even
went to his sons Barmitsvah. The f00000000ker cut ties with me and my
money on a business venture about 4 years ago. I worked like a slave for
6 months, ponied up my part of the money and trusted him. I got f000ked.
I am pretty sure I do not 'know' any Jehovah's witnesses. Most of my
friends are Catholic.

Birds of a feather I guess.

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 08:56:47
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"John_Brian_K"

>> I know what you likely mean, but you way of saying it leaves a little to
>> be
>> desired.
>
> ?
>
>> I am sure you "know" some Jews and you probably know some Jehovah's
>> Witnesses too.
>
> Not like THAT I don't.

I meant that you are likely acquainted with many people who are Jewish ...
and you are likely acquainted with many people who are Jehovah's Witnesses
... they do not all wear emblems ... nor do they all push their ethnicity or
religiosity on you.

I did not mean like "that."

> To think of it my old boss was Jewish. I even
> went to his sons Barmitsvah. The f00000000ker cut ties with me and my
> money on a business venture about 4 years ago. I worked like a slave for
> 6 months, ponied up my part of the money and trusted him. I got f000ked.
> I am pretty sure I do not 'know' any Jehovah's witnesses. Most of my
> friends are Catholic.
>
> Birds of a feather I guess.

If someone has to be a "friend" before you "know" them, then you might be
correct in your statement and I misunderstood.

I thought you were talking about "know" in the "acquainted with" sense.
Most people do not know the ethnicity or religion of the many people with
whom they are acquainted. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Most of my friends are not religious ... at least, I am unaware of their
religious affiliation. I do not know your religious affiliation but I might
say that I "know" you in a sense. Sorry again for my misunderstanding.




     
Date: 12 Feb 2009 08:00:27
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
> I meant that you are likely acquainted with many people who are Jewish ...
> and you are likely acquainted with many people who are Jehovah's Witnesses
> .... they do not all wear emblems ... nor do they all push their ethnicity
or
> religiosity on you.

Nahh. I do not 'know' that many people. I am 95% sure that just about
everyone I 'know' (I define this as friends mostly) are either Muslim or
Catholic. I can count these people on both hands and feet.

> I did not mean like "that."

lol

> If someone has to be a "friend" before you "know" them, then you might be
> correct in your statement and I misunderstood.
>
> I thought you were talking about "know" in the "acquainted with" sense.
> Most people do not know the ethnicity or religion of the many people with
> whom they are acquainted. Sorry, I misunderstood.

No reason to apologize. I am sure there are many people I am acquainted
with that come from a wide assortment of Religious backrounds. I do not
consider those people, people I 'know'.

> Most of my friends are not religious ... at least, I am unaware of their
> religious affiliation. I do not know your religious affiliation but I might
> say that I "know" you in a sense. Sorry again for my misunderstanding.

Again non needed. I do not discuss Religion with friends nor do I discuss
it with family. I believe I would be what you call 'agnostic'.

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 13:58:40
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:35:15 -0800, "risky biz"
<risky-biz@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>The phrase "push all the Jews into the
>sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by
>Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive
>policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the
>occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

I call bullshit. If it is invoked on a "daily basis" then why do I
only get 52 hits on Google for the phrase? Most of them are this very
essay. The ones that aren't are all claims that Zionists routinely
use this phrase, which they don't. The claim is just a flat-out lie.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22push+all+the+jews+into+the+sea%22+&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS282US282


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 21:00:19
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 7 2009 11:58 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:35:15 -0800, "risky biz"
> <risky-biz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >The phrase "push all the Jews into the
> >sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by
> >Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive
> >policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the
> >occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
>
> I call bullshit. If it is invoked on a "daily basis" then why do I
> only get 52 hits on Google for the phrase? Most of them are this very
> essay. The ones that aren't are all claims that Zionists routinely
> use this phrase, which they don't. The claim is just a flat-out lie.
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22push+all+the+jews+into+the+sea%22+&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS282US282

Gee, something really weird happened. When I type "jews into the sea" in a
Google searchbox I get 7,000,000 hits. Nice try, "jacks".

As for the daily part, that was right here at RGP yesterday:

Re: Iran launches its first satellite into space using
home-madetechnology. Joe Long Feb 6 2009 6:24 PM "Would you care to name
any country or organization that is threatening to destroy Iran and drive
the Iranians into the sea?"

By the way do you want to come with a believable reference of Palestinian
leaders saying that they will "drive the Jews into the sea"? After all,
with 7,000,000 hits on Google most of which claim that's what Palestinian
leaders have claimed they will do, you should be able to find some of them
actually, really saying that.

I can find plenty of quotes of Palestinian leaders saying the opposite.
Put your money where your mouth is.

______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 08 Feb 2009 00:17:00
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:00:19 -0800, "risky biz"
<risky-biz@sbcglobal.net > wrote:

>On Feb 7 2009 11:58 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:35:15 -0800, "risky biz"
>> <risky-biz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >The phrase "push all the Jews into the
>> >sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by
>> >Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive
>> >policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the
>> >occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
>>
>> I call bullshit. If it is invoked on a "daily basis" then why do I
>> only get 52 hits on Google for the phrase? Most of them are this very
>> essay. The ones that aren't are all claims that Zionists routinely
>> use this phrase, which they don't. The claim is just a flat-out lie.
>>
>>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22push+all+the+jews+into+the+sea%22+&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS282US282
>
>Gee, something really weird happened. When I type "jews into the sea" in a
>Google searchbox I get 7,000,000 hits. Nice try, "jacks".

Apparently you don't fucking understand how a Google search works,
because you're fucking retarded. If you're claiming you actually did
type it including the quotes, you're a lying piece of shit and you can
pretty much go into my killfile, you lying fucking garbage, because
that phrase in quotes does not get 7,000,000 hits.

You're either a moron or a liar. Don't care which. Into the killfile
with you, retard.


    
Date: 08 Feb 2009 06:08:29
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 7 2009 10:17 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:00:19 -0800, "risky biz"
> <risky-biz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 7 2009 11:58 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:35:15 -0800, "risky biz"
> >> <risky-biz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The phrase "push all the Jews into the
> >> >sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by
> >> >Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive
> >> >policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the
> >> >occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East
Jerusalem.
> >>
> >> I call bullshit. If it is invoked on a "daily basis" then why do I
> >> only get 52 hits on Google for the phrase? Most of them are this very
> >> essay. The ones that aren't are all claims that Zionists routinely
> >> use this phrase, which they don't. The claim is just a flat-out lie.
> >>
> >>
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22push+all+the+jews+into+the+sea%22+&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS282US282
> >
> >Gee, something really weird happened. When I type "jews into the sea" in a
> >Google searchbox I get 7,000,000 hits. Nice try, "jacks".
>
> Apparently you don't fucking understand how a Google search works,
> because you're fucking retarded. If you're claiming you actually did
> type it including the quotes, you're a lying piece of shit and you can
> pretty much go into my killfile, you lying fucking garbage, because
> that phrase in quotes does not get 7,000,000 hits.
>
> You're either a moron or a liar. Don't care which. Into the killfile
> with you, retard.

I put quotation marks around "jews into the sea" to make it clear what
words I entered into the searchbox rather than all the extraneous words
you entered in order to reduce the number of hits. I regret that you find
that so terribly atrocious that you've decided to killfile me.

What happened? Did you spend half an hour trying to find some Palestinian
in history actually using the term "drive the Jews into the sea" and give
up? I think you've decided that you prefer the lying legend of Israel and
you don't want to see anything else.

Pwned.

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 08 Feb 2009 10:05:21
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
risky biz wrote:
> On Feb 7 2009 10:17 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

>>> Gee, something really weird happened. When I type "jews into the sea" in a
>>> Google searchbox I get 7,000,000 hits. Nice try, "jacks".

>> Apparently you don't fucking understand how a Google search works,
>> because you're fucking retarded. If you're claiming you actually did
>> type it including the quotes, you're a lying piece of shit and you can
>> pretty much go into my killfile, you lying fucking garbage, because
>> that phrase in quotes does not get 7,000,000 hits.
>>
>> You're either a moron or a liar. Don't care which. Into the killfile
>> with you, retard.
>
> I put quotation marks around "jews into the sea" to make it clear what
> words I entered into the searchbox rather than all the extraneous words
> you entered in order to reduce the number of hits. I regret that you find
> that so terribly atrocious that you've decided to killfile me.

You further demonstrate what Jacks pointed out. When you type in
multiple words without surrounding them with quotation marks you get all
the references which contain any of the words. Natually, lots of
documents have the word "Jews" or the word "Sea" in them.

> What happened? Did you spend half an hour trying to find some Palestinian
> in history actually using the term "drive the Jews into the sea" and give
> up? I think you've decided that you prefer the lying legend of Israel and
> you don't want to see anything else.
>
> Pwned.

Yeah, right. Why am I not surprised that you would use that lame and
outdated braggadocio word?

Try "drive the jews into the sea" WITH the quotation marks, you'll find
sources. Of course, you will reject those that discredit your prejudice.

Of course, you may also be confused by the fact that the phrase is
usually used as a metaphor for destroying Israel and killing Israelis,
not necessarily for literally herding millions of people into the water.


--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range


      
Date: 08 Feb 2009 21:49:20
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 8 2009 10:05 AM, Joe Long wrote:

> risky biz wrote:
> > On Feb 7 2009 10:17 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
> >>> Gee, something really weird happened. When I type "jews into the sea" in
a
> >>> Google searchbox I get 7,000,000 hits. Nice try, "jacks".
>
> >> Apparently you don't fucking understand how a Google search works,
> >> because you're fucking retarded. If you're claiming you actually did
> >> type it including the quotes, you're a lying piece of shit and you can
> >> pretty much go into my killfile, you lying fucking garbage, because
> >> that phrase in quotes does not get 7,000,000 hits.
> >>
> >> You're either a moron or a liar. Don't care which. Into the killfile
> >> with you, retard.
> >
> > I put quotation marks around "jews into the sea" to make it clear what
> > words I entered into the searchbox rather than all the extraneous words
> > you entered in order to reduce the number of hits. I regret that you find
> > that so terribly atrocious that you've decided to killfile me.
>
> You further demonstrate what Jacks pointed out. When you type in
> multiple words without surrounding them with quotation marks you get all
> the references which contain any of the words. Natually, lots of
> documents have the word "Jews" or the word "Sea" in them.
>
> > What happened? Did you spend half an hour trying to find some Palestinian
> > in history actually using the term "drive the Jews into the sea" and give
> > up? I think you've decided that you prefer the lying legend of Israel and
> > you don't want to see anything else.
> >
> > Pwned.
>
> Yeah, right. Why am I not surprised that you would use that lame and
> outdated braggadocio word?
>
> Try "drive the jews into the sea" WITH the quotation marks, you'll find
> sources. Of course, you will reject those that discredit your prejudice.
>
> Of course, you may also be confused by the fact that the phrase is
> usually used as a metaphor for destroying Israel and killing Israelis,
> not necessarily for literally herding millions of people into the water.

Except that you, neither, just like "jacks", seem to be able to find a
reliable reference of it being spoken by a significant Palestinian leader.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and "jacks". Maybe what you're saying is
that significant Palestinian leaders said that not because they said that
but because Israel says that they say that and if Israel says that they
say that then it means that they say that.

I that what you're trying to say?

------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



       
Date: 09 Feb 2009 20:24:40
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
risky biz wrote:
> On Feb 8 2009 10:05 AM, Joe Long wrote:

>> Try "drive the jews into the sea" WITH the quotation marks, you'll find
>> sources. Of course, you will reject those that discredit your prejudice.
>>
>> Of course, you may also be confused by the fact that the phrase is
>> usually used as a metaphor for destroying Israel and killing Israelis,
>> not necessarily for literally herding millions of people into the water.
>
> Except that you, neither, just like "jacks", seem to be able to find a
> reliable reference of it being spoken by a significant Palestinian leader.
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and "jacks". Maybe what you're saying is
> that significant Palestinian leaders said that not because they said that
> but because Israel says that they say that and if Israel says that they
> say that then it means that they say that.
>
> I that what you're trying to say?

What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.

You remind me of the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church during the
Inquisition. Do you wish that Hitler had "finished the job?"


--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range


        
Date: 09 Feb 2009 20:19:51
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 9 2009 8:24 PM, Joe Long wrote:

> What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
> only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
> leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
> of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.

Your hyperbole aside, no such thing is necessary to get a reasonable peace
agreement into effect. But that isn't what you want. You want it to get
worse and worse so that the killing will continue. You like it.

------ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




         
Date: 10 Feb 2009 09:45:11
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 9 2009 11:19 PM, risky biz wrote:

> On Feb 9 2009 8:24 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
> > What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
> > only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
> > leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
> > of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.
>
> Your hyperbole aside, no such thing is necessary to get a reasonable peace
> agreement into effect. But that isn't what you want. You want it to get
> worse and worse so that the killing will continue. You like it.

You are saying here that you want a reasonable peace agreement? That is
an absolute crock of shit! In anaother thread you are saying that Hamas is
justified in firing rockets at civilians in Israel because those civilians
are living on land that was taken from the Palestinians (in the 1948 War
started by the Palestinians because they didn't like the UN partition
plan!).

Tell us the details of your "reasonable peace agreement?" This should be
entertaining.

------ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




          
Date: 10 Feb 2009 22:14:51
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 10 2009 10:45 AM, JerseyRudy wrote:

> On Feb 9 2009 11:19 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9 2009 8:24 PM, Joe Long wrote:
> >
> > > What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
> > > only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
> > > leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
> > > of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.
> >
> > Your hyperbole aside, no such thing is necessary to get a reasonable peace
> > agreement into effect. But that isn't what you want. You want it to get
> > worse and worse so that the killing will continue. You like it.
>
> You are saying here that you want a reasonable peace agreement? That is
> an absolute crock of shit! In anaother thread you are saying that Hamas is
> justified in firing rockets at civilians in Israel because those civilians
> are living on land that was taken from the Palestinians (in the 1948 War
> started by the Palestinians because they didn't like the UN partition
> plan!).
>
> Tell us the details of your "reasonable peace agreement?" This should be
> entertaining.

A reasonable peace agreement would be one which recognized the
Palestinian's Geneva Convention rights. What is it about the Geneva
Conventions that you find funny?

And why is it that alone among all people in the world the Palestinians
are the only ones automatically denied their Geneva Convention rights? Why
are they special?

________________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




           
Date: 11 Feb 2009 07:30:07
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 11 2009 1:14 AM, risky biz wrote:

> On Feb 10 2009 10:45 AM, JerseyRudy wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9 2009 11:19 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 9 2009 8:24 PM, Joe Long wrote:
> > >
> > > > What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
> > > > only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
> > > > leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
> > > > of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.
> > >
> > > Your hyperbole aside, no such thing is necessary to get a reasonable
peace
> > > agreement into effect. But that isn't what you want. You want it to get
> > > worse and worse so that the killing will continue. You like it.
> >
> > You are saying here that you want a reasonable peace agreement? That is
> > an absolute crock of shit! In anaother thread you are saying that Hamas is
> > justified in firing rockets at civilians in Israel because those civilians
> > are living on land that was taken from the Palestinians (in the 1948 War
> > started by the Palestinians because they didn't like the UN partition
> > plan!).
> >
> > Tell us the details of your "reasonable peace agreement?" This should be
> > entertaining.
>
> A reasonable peace agreement would be one which recognized the
> Palestinian's Geneva Convention rights. What is it about the Geneva
> Conventions that you find funny?

That is not an answer. Recognizing the Geneva Convention has nothing to do
with the specifics of a final peace agreement. You seem to think that
Hamas is justified under the Geneva Convention to fire rockets at
civilians in Israel, so recognizing the Geneva Convention is kind of
meaningless if you have that interpretation.

It's a simple question. Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what
should be the boundaries of the two states?

____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




            
Date: 11 Feb 2009 15:52:16
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"JerseyRudy"

>> A reasonable peace agreement would be one which recognized the
>> Palestinian's Geneva Convention rights. What is it about the Geneva
>> Conventions that you find funny?
>
> That is not an answer. Recognizing the Geneva Convention has nothing to do
> with the specifics of a final peace agreement. You seem to think that
> Hamas is justified under the Geneva Convention to fire rockets at
> civilians in Israel, so recognizing the Geneva Convention is kind of
> meaningless if you have that interpretation.
>
> It's a simple question. Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what
> should be the boundaries of the two states?

An interesting question.

As to the Geneva Convention, Gaza is not a state ... it is not a signatory
to the Geneva Convention.

If Gaza becomes a state and becomes a party to the Geneva Convention, the
rights of the citizens of that state will be recognized ... if the
convention applies to the actions of the parties. Your conclusion that if
all of that happens, the Geneva Convention would not support the firing of
rockets at civilians in Israel.




             
Date: 11 Feb 2009 22:00:42
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 11 2009 2:52 PM, da pickle wrote:

> "JerseyRudy"
>
> >> A reasonable peace agreement would be one which recognized the
> >> Palestinian's Geneva Convention rights. What is it about the Geneva
> >> Conventions that you find funny?
> >
> > That is not an answer. Recognizing the Geneva Convention has nothing to do
> > with the specifics of a final peace agreement. You seem to think that
> > Hamas is justified under the Geneva Convention to fire rockets at
> > civilians in Israel, so recognizing the Geneva Convention is kind of
> > meaningless if you have that interpretation.
> >
> > It's a simple question. Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what
> > should be the boundaries of the two states?
>
> An interesting question.
>
> As to the Geneva Convention, Gaza is not a state ... it is not a signatory
> to the Geneva Convention.
>
> If Gaza becomes a state and becomes a party to the Geneva Convention, the
> rights of the citizens of that state will be recognized

I really appreciate and respect your professional lawyer's opinion,
pickles- unfortunately you are completely wrong:

Common Article 1
Article 1 reads: "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to
ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."
Common Article 2
That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party"

Did they teach you to pull things out of your ass in law school or is it a
natural talent? I would think that you would at least glance at the Geneva
Conventions before you proceed to expound on them.

-------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



              
Date: 12 Feb 2009 07:27:24
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"risky biz"

> Did they teach you to pull things out of your ass in law school or is it a
> natural talent? I would think that you would at least glance at the Geneva
> Conventions before you proceed to expound on them.

You were suggesting something that indicated you did not understand much of
anything about "the" Geneva Convention ... pointing that out to you has put
you on tilt. Maybe Mav is on to something. It was fun.




               
Date: 12 Feb 2009 07:04:17
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 12 2009 6:27 AM, da pickle wrote:

> "risky biz"
>
> > Did they teach you to pull things out of your ass in law school or is it a
> > natural talent? I would think that you would at least glance at the Geneva
> > Conventions before you proceed to expound on them.
>
> You were suggesting something that indicated you did not understand much of
> anything about "the" Geneva Convention ... pointing that out to you has put
> you on tilt. Maybe Mav is on to something. It was fun.

I never used the term "the" Geneva Convention because there are a series
of them. That's just one more thing you pulled out of your ass to cover up
the obvious stupidity that you're expounding. You really never come to the
table with anything. As soon as a conversation gets down to specifics your
genius instantly undergoes a rapid withering process.

_______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



                
Date: 12 Feb 2009 09:24:15
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"risky biz"

>> You were suggesting something that indicated you did not understand much
>> of
>> anything about "the" Geneva Convention ... pointing that out to you has
>> put
>> you on tilt. Maybe Mav is on to something. It was fun.
>
> I never used the term "the" Geneva Convention because there are a series
> of them.

My mistake, you did indeed reference the Geneva Conventions ... you just did
not understand what you were talking about. My bad ... your bad.


> That's just one more thing you pulled out of your ass to cover up
> the obvious stupidity that you're expounding. You really never come to the
> table with anything. As soon as a conversation gets down to specifics your
> genius instantly undergoes a rapid withering process.

I just made a mistake ... just like you did. I am a genius, but I can still
make mistakes.

Sometimes, you make sense ... sometimes you do not. This time, you make no
sense.




             
Date: 11 Feb 2009 17:36:37
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:52:16 -0600, "da pickle"
<jcpickels@NOSPAMhotmail.com > wrote:

>"JerseyRudy"
>
>>> A reasonable peace agreement would be one which recognized the
>>> Palestinian's Geneva Convention rights. What is it about the Geneva
>>> Conventions that you find funny?
>>
>> That is not an answer. Recognizing the Geneva Convention has nothing to do
>> with the specifics of a final peace agreement. You seem to think that
>> Hamas is justified under the Geneva Convention to fire rockets at
>> civilians in Israel, so recognizing the Geneva Convention is kind of
>> meaningless if you have that interpretation.
>>
>> It's a simple question. Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what
>> should be the boundaries of the two states?
>
>An interesting question.
>
>As to the Geneva Convention, Gaza is not a state ... it is not a signatory
>to the Geneva Convention.
>
>If Gaza becomes a state and becomes a party to the Geneva Convention, the
>rights of the citizens of that state will be recognized ...

No, wrong, you just don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva
Convention applies to nonsignatories as well, in a conflict, and is
binding even upon nonsignatories.

". . .Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
and applies the provisions thereof."


              
Date: 11 Feb 2009 17:30:22
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"A Man Beaten by Jacks"

>>>> A reasonable peace agreement would be one which recognized the
>>>> Palestinian's Geneva Convention rights. What is it about the Geneva
>>>> Conventions that you find funny?
>>>
>>> That is not an answer. Recognizing the Geneva Convention has nothing to
>>> do
>>> with the specifics of a final peace agreement. You seem to think that
>>> Hamas is justified under the Geneva Convention to fire rockets at
>>> civilians in Israel, so recognizing the Geneva Convention is kind of
>>> meaningless if you have that interpretation.
>>>
>>> It's a simple question. Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what
>>> should be the boundaries of the two states?
>>
>>An interesting question.
>>
>>As to the Geneva Convention, Gaza is not a state ... it is not a signatory
>>to the Geneva Convention.
>>
>>If Gaza becomes a state and becomes a party to the Geneva Convention, the
>>rights of the citizens of that state will be recognized ...
>
> No, wrong, you just don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva
> Convention applies to nonsignatories as well, in a conflict, and is
> binding even upon nonsignatories.
>
> ". . .Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
> present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
> bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
> by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
> and applies the provisions thereof."

Don't you even read what you post?




               
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:05:32
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, "da pickle"
<jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote:

>"A Man Beaten by Jacks"
>
>>>>> A reasonable peace agreement would be one which recognized the
>>>>> Palestinian's Geneva Convention rights. What is it about the Geneva
>>>>> Conventions that you find funny?
>>>>
>>>> That is not an answer. Recognizing the Geneva Convention has nothing to
>>>> do
>>>> with the specifics of a final peace agreement. You seem to think that
>>>> Hamas is justified under the Geneva Convention to fire rockets at
>>>> civilians in Israel, so recognizing the Geneva Convention is kind of
>>>> meaningless if you have that interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> It's a simple question. Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what
>>>> should be the boundaries of the two states?
>>>
>>>An interesting question.
>>>
>>>As to the Geneva Convention, Gaza is not a state ... it is not a signatory
>>>to the Geneva Convention.
>>>
>>>If Gaza becomes a state and becomes a party to the Geneva Convention, the
>>>rights of the citizens of that state will be recognized ...
>>
>> No, wrong, you just don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva
>> Convention applies to nonsignatories as well, in a conflict, and is
>> binding even upon nonsignatories.
>>
>> ". . .Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
>> present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
>> bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
>> by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
>> and applies the provisions thereof."
>
>Don't you even read what you post?

Yes, moron. What part don't you understand, you fucking pinhead? It's
a pretty simple matter to construe it in the way any other scholar
has. What's your problem? Retarded?


                
Date: 11 Feb 2009 18:50:53
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"A Man Beaten by Jacks"

>>Don't you even read what you post?
>
> Yes, moron. What part don't you understand, you fucking pinhead? It's
> a pretty simple matter to construe it in the way any other scholar
> has. What's your problem? Retarded?

I love it when you think that international relations are clear and "pretty
simple."

Brilliant.




                
Date: 11 Feb 2009 17:33:26
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, "da pickle"
> <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "A Man Beaten by Jacks"

>>> No, wrong, you just don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva
>>> Convention applies to nonsignatories as well, in a conflict, and is
>>> binding even upon nonsignatories.
>>>
>>> ". . .Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
>>> present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
>>> bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
>>> by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
>>> and applies the provisions thereof."

>> Don't you even read what you post?
>
> Yes, moron. What part don't you understand, you fucking pinhead? It's
> a pretty simple matter to construe it in the way any other scholar
> has. What's your problem? Retarded?

It seems to be you who doesn't understand your own quote. That says
that Israel is bound to honor the Geneva Convention among other
signatories even while in a conflict with a non-signatory. Plain common
sense, and Israel does. Then it says that Israel would be bound in its
actions re Gaza IF -- a very important IF -- Gaza accepted and applied
the provisions. Gaza does not.


--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range


                 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 22:37:17
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 11 2009 5:33 PM, Joe Long wrote:

> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, "da pickle"
> > <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "A Man Beaten by Jacks"
>
> >>> No, wrong, you just don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva
> >>> Convention applies to nonsignatories as well, in a conflict, and is
> >>> binding even upon nonsignatories.
> >>>
> >>> ". . .Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
> >>> present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
> >>> bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
> >>> by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
> >>> and applies the provisions thereof."
>
> >> Don't you even read what you post?
> >
> > Yes, moron. What part don't you understand, you fucking pinhead? It's
> > a pretty simple matter to construe it in the way any other scholar
> > has. What's your problem? Retarded?
>
> It seems to be you who doesn't understand your own quote. That says
> that Israel is bound to honor the Geneva Convention among other
> signatories even while in a conflict with a non-signatory. Plain common
> sense, and Israel does.

Israel doesn't. You are a liar.


> Then it says that Israel would be bound in its
> actions re Gaza IF -- a very important IF -- Gaza accepted and applied
> the provisions. Gaza does not.

That's an idiot proposition given the historical fact that Israel, since
day one of it's invention, has had a well established and continuous
policy of completely ignoring the Geneva Conventions and being protected
and shielded in that behavior by the military, economic, and political
clout of the United States.

----- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




                  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 07:49:17
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 12 2009 1:37 AM, risky biz wrote:

> On Feb 11 2009 5:33 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
> > A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, "da pickle"
> > > <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "A Man Beaten by Jacks"
> >
> > >>> No, wrong, you just don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva
> > >>> Convention applies to nonsignatories as well, in a conflict, and is
> > >>> binding even upon nonsignatories.
> > >>>
> > >>> ". . .Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
> > >>> present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
> > >>> bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
> > >>> by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
> > >>> and applies the provisions thereof."
> >
> > >> Don't you even read what you post?
> > >
> > > Yes, moron. What part don't you understand, you fucking pinhead? It's
> > > a pretty simple matter to construe it in the way any other scholar
> > > has. What's your problem? Retarded?
> >
> > It seems to be you who doesn't understand your own quote. That says
> > that Israel is bound to honor the Geneva Convention among other
> > signatories even while in a conflict with a non-signatory. Plain common
> > sense, and Israel does.
>
> Israel doesn't. You are a liar.
>
>
> > Then it says that Israel would be bound in its
> > actions re Gaza IF -- a very important IF -- Gaza accepted and applied
> > the provisions. Gaza does not.
>
> That's an idiot proposition given the historical fact that Israel, since
> day one of it's invention, has had a well established and continuous
> policy of completely ignoring the Geneva Conventions and being protected
> and shielded in that behavior by the military, economic, and political
> clout of the United States.

I guess you succeeded in side-tracking the discussion, but you never
answered the direct questions that go the heart of the conflict:

Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what should be the boundaries of
the two states?

-------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



                   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 17:31:18
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"JerseyRudy"

> Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what should be the boundaries of
> the two states?

You are unlikely to get a coherent answer to your question.




                    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 18:40:42
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:31:18 -0600, "da pickle"
<jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote:

>"JerseyRudy"

>> Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what should be the boundaries of
>> the two states?

>You are unlikely to get a coherent answer to your question.

Not that damn hard. It would look something like the one that Arafat
spat on. And obviously even after it was reached, there would be
squabbles over what exactly had been agreed to.

Clearly this isn't going to happen with terrorist misgovernment in
Palestine, but a clear majority of both Israelis and Palestinians have
supported a two state solution over the years.

The people interested in making it "hard" to agree on borders are the
people who profit from the continuing wars, i.e. the extremists on
both sides.


                     
Date: 13 Feb 2009 08:07:48
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 12 2009 6:40 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:31:18 -0600, "da pickle"
> <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"JerseyRudy"
>
> >> Do you favor a two-state solution? If so, what should be the boundaries of
> >> the two states?
>
> >You are unlikely to get a coherent answer to your question.
>
> Not that damn hard. It would look something like the one that Arafat
> spat on. And obviously even after it was reached, there would be
> squabbles over what exactly had been agreed to.
>
> Clearly this isn't going to happen with terrorist misgovernment in
> Palestine, but a clear majority of both Israelis and Palestinians have
> supported a two state solution over the years.
>
> The people interested in making it "hard" to agree on borders are the
> people who profit from the continuing wars, i.e. the extremists on
> both sides.

I was specifically asking "risky biz" because I have a feeling he
disagrees with most, if not all, of this answer. I have a feeling he
would lable you a "sell-out to Israeli Nazis" based on this answer.

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



                 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 20:07:55
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:33:26 -0700, Joe Long <nospam@spam.com > wrote:

>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:30:22 -0600, "da pickle"
>> <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "A Man Beaten by Jacks"
>
>>>> No, wrong, you just don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva
>>>> Convention applies to nonsignatories as well, in a conflict, and is
>>>> binding even upon nonsignatories.
>>>>
>>>> ". . .Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
>>>> present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
>>>> bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
>>>> by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
>>>> and applies the provisions thereof."
>
>>> Don't you even read what you post?
>>
>> Yes, moron. What part don't you understand, you fucking pinhead? It's
>> a pretty simple matter to construe it in the way any other scholar
>> has. What's your problem? Retarded?
>
>It seems to be you who doesn't understand your own quote. That says
>that Israel is bound to honor the Geneva Convention among other
>signatories even while in a conflict with a non-signatory. Plain common
>sense, and Israel does. Then it says that Israel would be bound in its
>actions re Gaza IF -- a very important IF -- Gaza accepted and applied
>the provisions. Gaza does not.

Which has NOTHING to do with whether they're a SIGNATORY. Jesus fuck
you people are dense.


                  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:52:12
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:33:26 -0700, Joe Long <nospam@spam.com> wrote:

>>>>> ". . .Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
>>>>> present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
>>>>> bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
>>>>> by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
>>>>> and applies the provisions thereof."

>>>> Don't you even read what you post?

>>> Yes, moron. What part don't you understand, you fucking pinhead? It's
>>> a pretty simple matter to construe it in the way any other scholar
>>> has. What's your problem? Retarded?

>> It seems to be you who doesn't understand your own quote. That says
>> that Israel is bound to honor the Geneva Convention among other
>> signatories even while in a conflict with a non-signatory. Plain common
>> sense, and Israel does. Then it says that Israel would be bound in its
>> actions re Gaza IF -- a very important IF -- Gaza accepted and applied
>> the provisions. Gaza does not.
>
> Which has NOTHING to do with whether they're a SIGNATORY. Jesus fuck
> you people are dense.

Speaking of dense, who is saying the Palestinians are a signatory?
What your quote says that when dealing with a non-signatory, the
Conventions do not apply unless the non-signatory follows them. Which
the Palestinians don't.

Criticizing Israel for not observing the letter of the Geneva
Conventions, given the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, is ludicrous.


--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range


                   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 15:05:14
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:52:12 -0700, Joe Long <nospam@spam.com > wrote:

>Criticizing Israel for not observing the letter of the Geneva
>Conventions, given the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, is ludicrous.

Nonsense. Most of what is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions is
absolutely reprehensible and would be absolutely reprehensible even if
the Geneva Conventions never existed.


                    
Date: 13 Feb 2009 23:44:03
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:52:12 -0700, Joe Long <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> Criticizing Israel for not observing the letter of the Geneva
>> Conventions, given the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, is ludicrous.
>
> Nonsense. Most of what is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions is
> absolutely reprehensible and would be absolutely reprehensible even if
> the Geneva Conventions never existed.

Most of it, yes. Please note that I saaid "... not observing the letter
..."

Israel has been far more compliant with the Conventions and common
standards of human decency than have Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other
terrorists harassing them.


--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range


                     
Date: 14 Feb 2009 02:16:24
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: For Joe Long

"Joe Long" <nospam@spam.com > wrote in message
news:nd2dneCQbN6p9QvUnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@giganews.com...
>A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:52:12 -0700, Joe Long <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Criticizing Israel for not observing the letter of the Geneva
>>> Conventions, given the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, is ludicrous.
>>
>> Nonsense. Most of what is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions is
>> absolutely reprehensible and would be absolutely reprehensible even if
>> the Geneva Conventions never existed.
>
> Most of it, yes. Please note that I saaid "... not observing the letter
> ..."
>
> Israel has been far more compliant with the Conventions and common
> standards of human decency than have Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other
> terrorists harassing them.
>
>
> --
> Joe Long aka ChipRider
> Somewhere on the Range

Saw a news story tonight where the people in Gaza are saying they are being
shot, beaten and murdered by Hamas thugs . They went on to say that Hamas
has now adopted a policy of "you're either with us of against us". The
people are afraid to speak out for fear of being beaten or killed. Now
normally I'd be inclined to feel sorry for people in this situation but the
Palestinians in Gaza knew exactly what kind of scum bags Hamas was when they
voted them in to office. Of course, no matter how badly Hamas brutalizes
them, they'll still blame it all on Israel. So as far as I'm concerned
they pretty much deserve what they get. The only way there will ever be
peace is if the Palestinians start loving their own children more than they
hate the Jews.

Irish Mike




                    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 17:30:35
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"A Man Beaten by Jacks"

> Nonsense. Most of what is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions is
> absolutely reprehensible and would be absolutely reprehensible even if
> the Geneva Conventions never existed.

What Hamas is doing is clearly forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention.




                     
Date: 12 Feb 2009 18:36:38
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:30:35 -0600, "da pickle"
<jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote:

>"A Man Beaten by Jacks"

>> Nonsense. Most of what is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions is
>> absolutely reprehensible and would be absolutely reprehensible even if
>> the Geneva Conventions never existed.

>What Hamas is doing is clearly forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Which has NOTHING to do with whether they're a signatory or not. You
claimed that nobody who isn't from a signatory nation should expect
the protection of the Conventions. That's just bullshit and wrong.
Not that I expected you to face up to that.


                      
Date: 12 Feb 2009 20:10:13
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"A Man Beaten by Jacks"

>>What Hamas is doing is clearly forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
>
> Which has NOTHING to do with whether they're a signatory or not. You
> claimed that nobody who isn't from a signatory nation should expect
> the protection of the Conventions. That's just bullshit and wrong.
> Not that I expected you to face up to that.

This sub-discussion started when risky posted:

"A reasonable peace agreement would be one which recognized the
Palestinian's Geneva Convention rights."

in response to Rudy's question.

I may or may not be correct in my interpretation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, but I am not incorrect in saying that "if" the Fourth Geneva
Convention applies to the actions of Hamas, their actions are forbidden.

The enforcement and the interpretation of all international treaties and
conventions is quite complex. I claim no special knowledge or expertise. I
have heard nothing from you that allows me to conclude that you possess more
knowledge than I.

"Law stands mute in the midst of arms." Cicero





                       
Date: 12 Feb 2009 21:22:57
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:10:13 -0600, "da pickle"
<jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote:

>"A Man Beaten by Jacks"

>>>What Hamas is doing is clearly forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

>> Which has NOTHING to do with whether they're a signatory or not. You
>> claimed that nobody who isn't from a signatory nation should expect
>> the protection of the Conventions. That's just bullshit and wrong.
>> Not that I expected you to face up to that.

>This sub-discussion started when risky posted:

I don't care when YOU think it started. For me, it started when you
said this:


---BEGIN DUMB SHIT FROM DA PICKLE---

As to the Geneva Convention, Gaza is not a state ... it is not a
signatory
to the Geneva Convention.

If Gaza becomes a state and becomes a party to the Geneva Convention,
the
rights of the citizens of that state will be recognized ... if the
convention applies to the actions of the parties. Your conclusion
that if
all of that happens, the Geneva Convention would not support the
firing of
rockets at civilians in Israel.

---END DUMB SHIT FROM DA PICKLE---

Whether or not (one of the) Geneva Conventions apply to to the
inhabitants of Gaza is NOT dependent on whether or not "Gaza" is a
signatory to the Geneva Convention.

And as I've already pointed out, most of the actions forbidden under
the relevant Geneva Conventions are reprehensible and would be
reprehensible whether or not the Geneva Convention ever existed.

Both Israel and the Hamas terrorists should obey these rules
voluntarily, whether or not they are formally bound to do so. Basic
principles of moral decency demand it.

The body count on both sides greatly favors the Israelis, and much of
that death count is due to violations of the Geneva Conventions.


                 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 18:54:38
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
"Joe Long"

> It seems to be you who doesn't understand your own quote. That says
> that Israel is bound to honor the Geneva Convention among other
> signatories even while in a conflict with a non-signatory. Plain common
> sense, and Israel does. Then it says that Israel would be bound in its
> actions re Gaza IF -- a very important IF -- Gaza accepted and applied
> the provisions. Gaza does not.

It is all pretty complicated ... I certainly do not claim any expertise.

However, trying to trot out the fourth geneva convention to show ...
whatever it was (that whoever risky might be) was trying to show ... well,
it is pretty darned silly. But then, most of our "discussions" on RGP often
get a little silly.




         
Date: 09 Feb 2009 22:52:47
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
risky biz wrote:
> On Feb 9 2009 8:24 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
>> What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
>> only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
>> leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
>> of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.
>
> Your hyperbole aside,

No hyperbole at all. The plain truth.

> no such thing is necessary to get a reasonable peace
> agreement into effect. But that isn't what you want. You want it to get
> worse and worse so that the killing will continue. You like it.

And black is white, war is peace, and lies are truth.

The Palestinians could have had peace any time they wanted it in the
last 60 years. They could have had their own State and been in control
of their own destiny, living in peace. But they have been betrayed by a
fanatical minority and their leaders, who prefer to continue the
suffering of those poor people indefinitely rather than give up their
mad dream of destroying Israel. We had all better hope they don't ever
actually get to the point of success, because Israel will not go gently
into that good night. The certain result would be nuclear Armageddon in
the Middle East.


--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range


        
Date: 09 Feb 2009 20:00:04
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 9 2009 8:24 PM, Joe Long wrote:

> risky biz wrote:
> > On Feb 8 2009 10:05 AM, Joe Long wrote:
>
> >> Try "drive the jews into the sea" WITH the quotation marks, you'll find
> >> sources. Of course, you will reject those that discredit your prejudice.
> >>
> >> Of course, you may also be confused by the fact that the phrase is
> >> usually used as a metaphor for destroying Israel and killing Israelis,
> >> not necessarily for literally herding millions of people into the water.
> >
> > Except that you, neither, just like "jacks", seem to be able to find a
> > reliable reference of it being spoken by a significant Palestinian leader.
> >
> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and "jacks". Maybe what you're saying is
> > that significant Palestinian leaders said that not because they said that
> > but because Israel says that they say that and if Israel says that they
> > say that then it means that they say that.
> >
> > I that what you're trying to say?
>
> What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
> only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
> leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
> of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.

Do you have any examples yet?

>
> You remind me of the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church during the
> Inquisition. Do you wish that Hitler had "finished the job?"

Really impressive debate skills, Joe. You're like a circus weightlifter
whose gigantic barbells are made of cardboard.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




         
Date: 09 Feb 2009 22:46:44
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
risky biz wrote:
> On Feb 9 2009 8:24 PM, Joe Long wrote:

>> What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
>> only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
>> leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
>> of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.
>
> Do you have any examples yet?

There's only something on the order of tens of thousands of them. We
told you where to find them, you have been provided specific links many
times by many people -- if you haven't seen it by now you never will.

>> You remind me of the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church during the
>> Inquisition. Do you wish that Hitler had "finished the job?"

You didn't answer my question.


--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range


          
Date: 10 Feb 2009 20:59:10
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 9 2009 10:46 PM, Joe Long wrote:

> risky biz wrote:
> > On Feb 9 2009 8:24 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
> >> What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
> >> only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
> >> leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
> >> of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.
> >
> > Do you have any examples yet?
>
> There's only something on the order of tens of thousands of them. We
> told you where to find them, you have been provided specific links many
> times by many people -- if you haven't seen it by now you never will.

D-O-D-D-D-G-E-B-A-L-L-L-L!


> >> You remind me of the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church during the
> >> Inquisition. Do you wish that Hitler had "finished the job?"
>
> You didn't answer my question.

Because it's a moron question and illustrates quite well your complete
inability to back up your clueless proclamations. That's why you and the
other supporters of Israeli nazism almost always immediately resort to
smears.

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



        
Date: 09 Feb 2009 21:46:53
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:24:40 -0700, Joe Long <nospam@spam.com > wrote:

>risky biz wrote:
>> On Feb 8 2009 10:05 AM, Joe Long wrote:
>
>>> Try "drive the jews into the sea" WITH the quotation marks, you'll find
>>> sources. Of course, you will reject those that discredit your prejudice.
>>>
>>> Of course, you may also be confused by the fact that the phrase is
>>> usually used as a metaphor for destroying Israel and killing Israelis,
>>> not necessarily for literally herding millions of people into the water.
>>
>> Except that you, neither, just like "jacks", seem to be able to find a
>> reliable reference of it being spoken by a significant Palestinian leader.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and "jacks". Maybe what you're saying is
>> that significant Palestinian leaders said that not because they said that
>> but because Israel says that they say that and if Israel says that they
>> say that then it means that they say that.
>>
>> I that what you're trying to say?
>
>What is very telling is your inability to see the plain truth that not
>only Palestinian leaders from 1948 to the present, but Persian and Arab
>leaders in Iran, Syria, and other countries have called for the killing
>of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel for 60 years.
>
>You remind me of the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church during the
>Inquisition. Do you wish that Hitler had "finished the job?"

To be fair, there was some diversity of opinion.

While it is true that the Grand Mufti was a big supporter of Hitler,
there is the opposite viewpoint.

After all, if it wasn't for Adolph's zeal in carrying out the "Final
Solution", the Zionists would not have had such a strong case for the
establishment of Israel.

Israel might not even exist, were it not for the Holocaust.

Goes to show ya.
Sometimes getting what you wish for is the worst thing that can
happen.


    
Date: 08 Feb 2009 01:23:38
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 7 2009 10:17 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:00:19 -0800, "risky biz"
> <risky-biz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 7 2009 11:58 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:35:15 -0800, "risky biz"
> >> <risky-biz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The phrase "push all the Jews into the
> >> >sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by
> >> >Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive
> >> >policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the
> >> >occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East
Jerusalem.
> >>
> >> I call bullshit. If it is invoked on a "daily basis" then why do I
> >> only get 52 hits on Google for the phrase? Most of them are this very
> >> essay. The ones that aren't are all claims that Zionists routinely
> >> use this phrase, which they don't. The claim is just a flat-out lie.
> >>
> >>
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22push+all+the+jews+into+the+sea%22+&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS282US282
> >
> >Gee, something really weird happened. When I type "jews into the sea" in a
> >Google searchbox I get 7,000,000 hits. Nice try, "jacks".
>
> Apparently you don't fucking understand how a Google search works,
> because you're fucking retarded. If you're claiming you actually did
> type it including the quotes, you're a lying piece of shit and you can
> pretty much go into my killfile, you lying fucking garbage, because
> that phrase in quotes does not get 7,000,000 hits.
>
> You're either a moron or a liar. Don't care which. Into the killfile
> with you, retard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29065906/

http://tinyurl.com/bxhyl2

Why all the hate , brother.

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 20:43:23
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 7 2009 11:58 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:35:15 -0800, "risky biz"
> <risky-biz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >The phrase "push all the Jews into the
> >sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by
> >Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive
> >policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the
> >occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
>
> I call bullshit. If it is invoked on a "daily basis" then why do I
> only get 52 hits on Google for the phrase? Most of them are this very
> essay. The ones that aren't are all claims that Zionists routinely
> use this phrase, which they don't. The claim is just a flat-out lie.
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22push+all+the+jews+into+the+sea%22+&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS282US282



Well you are at least half right, Not everyone has a computer and it is
certainly said at least 50 times a day by non supporters of israel.

In the same way as " turn them into a parking lot" is mentioned at least
50 times a day in the US.

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 07 Feb 2009 21:24:23
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: For Joe Long
On Feb 7 2009 8:43 PM, RGP Loner wrote:

> On Feb 7 2009 11:58 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:35:15 -0800, "risky biz"
> > <risky-biz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >The phrase "push all the Jews into the
> > >sea, dead or alive" has acquired a life of its own as it is invoked by
> > >Zionist supporters on a daily basis in order to justify the aggressive
> > >policies of Israel as well as its recalcitrance in continuing the
> > >occupation of the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
> >
> > I call bullshit. If it is invoked on a "daily basis" then why do I
> > only get 52 hits on Google for the phrase? Most of them are this very
> > essay. The ones that aren't are all claims that Zionists routinely
> > use this phrase, which they don't. The claim is just a flat-out lie.
> >
> >
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22push+all+the+jews+into+the+sea%22+&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS282US282
>
>
>
> Well you are at least half right, Not everyone has a computer and it is
> certainly said at least 50 times a day by non supporters of israel.
>
> In the same way as " turn them into a parking lot" is mentioned at least
> 50 times a day in the US.

No no, parking lot is a waste of all that good space. Golf course.

"Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play"



Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com