May 20, 2009 Correct! The "Arabs" Don't Want Peace

WHO FAVORS a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

The consensus, it would seem, is overwhelming. As Henri Guaino, a senior adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, put it on Sunday: "Everyone wants peace. The whole world wants a Palestinian state."

It isn't going to happen.

International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.

So why you might ask would "Arabs" turn down every deal they have ever been offered including a Palestinian state?

The elephant in the room that is not mentioned is Islam. Or at least some basic principals in the Koran that we somehow just don't seem to get. I was looking at the nutty Aussie Youtube guy last week talk about the "sekrit zionist khinspiracy" to rule the world. That is an often repeated line in anti-semite, leftist and Islamist rhetoric.

But no one mentions the overtly naked and open requirements in Islam that it establish its dominance over the Kuffar and establish a global caliphate and rule the world under Sharia law.

In fact the leftists would be red with rage (and righrfully so) if anyone suggested modern people live under Papal law, but somehow a system that is just as if not more repressive than inquisition gets a noble savage pass

But don't take my word for it. The Islamists and terror supports say it openly and without shame.

The above article mentions the Pope so to see just what the Muslims, or at least some Muslims believe is required of the Pope to make them happy.

See this anonymoused link to Yousef al-Khattab's website.

The disbeliever must be submissive to Islam. He either enters Islam, or pays the Jizya(tax). If the Jews or Christians want to live in Palestine, they must abide by the Islamic law and respect it. They must either accept Islam or pay Jizya. Otherwise, there is no compromise.

So all the Pope has to do is pay the Jizya and declare that Islam is superior to Catholicism and then there can be a temporary peace. How long does that pace last? Well until the Muslims can conquer Rome.

Another condition for peace is that it has to be in accordance with the Quran andSunnah, otherwise, the peace treaty would not be valid. The peace treaty cannot proclaim "peace forever" since that would nullify our obligation of jihad. The pope encouraged the denouncement of Jihad when he "Called on the Palestinians to resist any temptation to resort to acts of violence in what is being seen as his strongest public support yet for Palestinian statehood."

"I make this appeal to the many young people throughout the Palestinian territories today," he said.

"Do not allow the loss of life and the destruction that you have witnessed to arouse bitterness or resentment in your hearts.", he said.

This is nonsense! Allah says in the holy Quran "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it…" (1:215)

So that's the deal that the Pope gets. So what about the Jews? What about Israel.

This land is not for the Palestinians, Arabs, nor Israelites; Palestine is for the Muslims. Every Prophet that came fulfilled his duty protecting it; All Prophets from the time of Prophet Ibraheem alayhi assalam, Musa, Yusuf, Dawuud, Sulayman, to Prophet Muhammad, Sal Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam. All were prophets of Allah, and Allah says in the Quran "The religion with Allah is Islam" (3:19). There are some misunderstandings that Prophet Noah or Ibraheem (Aberham) were the "Prophets of the Jews." The Holy Quran states that "Ibrahim (Aberham) was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a true Muslim Hanifa (Islamic Monotheism-to worship none but Allah alone)" (3:67). So Palestine is not for the Palestinians to do as they please with it, nor is it for the Jews, but it is the land that Allah ordained for the true believers.

Note "Muslim Lands" are any place that has ever been or will ever be under Muslim rule. Muslims' obligation is to retake all lands that were ever under Muslim rule and expand the caliphate.

So at what point will the Muslims stop and have peace with the Jews?

It should be clear to us that the animosity the Jews had towards the Muslims at the time of Prophet Muhammad Sal Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam will continue until the end of time. There can be a cessation of hostility and disengagement of the army,

but the state of war will always exist.

We should never take them as allies. As Allah says in the Quran, "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Aulia' (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliya' of each other. And if any amongst you takes them asAulia', then surely he is one of them." (5:51)

Just so we're clear on that, he means Never ever ever.

So you can go around talking Peace process all you want, its all hot air without addressing the root of the cause. The Jews are alive and have a state. This is the problem Muslims ooops I mean Arabs have with the state of Israel.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/197690.php...ives/197690.php

what do those who speak the queens english call what is spoken down under such as in kiwi land, tazmania and ozzy ville?

Tasmania is not a seperate country.

From Wiki (search; AIPAC):

"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC; pronounced <span style="font-family:">/eɪ.pæk/[/font], ay-pak) is a lobbying group that advocates for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. The current President of the AIPAC is David Victor, from Detroit, Michigan.^[1] As an independent, not-for-profit entity, AIPAC is funded entirely through contributions from its members.Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby,"^[2] AIPAC is a mass-membership organization whose members include Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The New York Times calls it "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."^[3] It has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC, and its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a "stranglehold" on the US Congress.^[4]

A Pentagon analyst pled guilty to charges of passing US government secrets to two AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC espionage scandal. Both staffers were later fired.^[5]

Also from Wikipedia:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) describes itself as America's largest Muslim civil liberties group. Founded in 1994 by officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine, it is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, with regional offices nationwide and in Canada.[1]

Through media relations, lobbying, and education, CAIR presents what it views as an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public, and seeks to empower the American Muslim community and encourage its social and political activism.

Critics of CAIR note that it was named an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, accuse it of being a front group for Hamas, being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee, and associating with antisemitism, and have raised concerns about the group's foreign Arab funding."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It would seem both sides have their political positions known in Washington politics.

You compare "one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC" with a group that has no significant lobbying power.

The article tries to smear them with intimations and hearsay, but would have been innaccurate if it hadn't mentioned "unindicted".

You compare "one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC" with a group that has no significant lobbying power.

It is not because of lack of trying. American's don't like groups that support terrorists.

From Wiki (search; AIPAC):

"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC; pronounced <span style="font-family:">/eɪ.pæk/[/font], ay-pak) is a lobbying group that advocates for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. The current President of the AIPAC is David Victor, from Detroit, Michigan.^[1] As an independent, not-for-profit entity, AIPAC is funded entirely through contributions from its members.Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby,"^[2] AIPAC is a mass-membership organization whose members include Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The New York Times calls it "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."^[3] It has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC, and its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a "stranglehold" on the US Congress.^[4]

A Pentagon analyst pled guilty to charges of passing US government secrets to two AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC espionage scandal. Both staffers were later fired.^[5]

Also from Wikipedia:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) describes itself as America's largest Muslim civil liberties group. Founded in 1994 by officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine, it is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, with regional offices nationwide and in Canada.[1]

Through media relations, lobbying, and education, CAIR presents what it views as an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public, and seeks to empower the American Muslim community and encourage its social and political activism.

Critics of CAIR note that it was named an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, accuse it of being a front group for Hamas, being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee, and associating with antisemitism, and have raised concerns about the group's foreign Arab funding."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It would seem both sides have their political positions known in Washington politics.

You compare "one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC" with a group that has no significant lobbying power.

The article tries to smear them with intimations and hearsay, but would have been innaccurate if it hadn't mentioned "unindicted".

You compare "one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC" with a group that has no significant lobbying power.

It is not because of lack of trying. American's don't like groups that support terrorists.

Unless it's the IRA.

For Chucky and Maccaroni, IRA = Irish Republican Army.

You compare "one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC" with a group that has no significant lobbying power.

It is not because of lack of trying. American's don't like groups that support terrorists.

Unless it was the Mujahadeen when Russia tried to invade Afghanistan.

For Chucky and Maccaroni, Mujahadeen = Muslim guerilla insurgent.

For Chucky and Maccaroni, if you need to define "insurgent"...google it yourself.

Just when I thought the tone of our little corner of the forum was improving. Oh, well.

Just when I thought the tone of our little corner of the forum was improving. Oh, well.

I couldn't resist clicking "read this post" on that one since it seemed to be a direct response.

Yes, it has degenerated. I waved the white flag to Chucky and he decided to shoot it out of my hand. As for Maccaroni....I still can't get over his admission of his proclivity to rape school boys, so every time he aggravates, I respond. I don't abide by child rapists, so he gets on my nerves.

I would have preferred to keep it all civil, too.

.

Just when I thought the tone of our little corner of the forum was improving. Oh, well.

I couldn't resist clicking "read this post" on that one since it seemed to be a direct response.

Yes, it has degenerated. I waved the white flag to Chucky and he decided to shoot it out of my hand. As for Maccaroni....I still can't get over his admission of his proclivity to rape school boys, so every time he aggravates, I respond. I don't abide by child rapists, so he gets on my nerves.

I would have preferred to keep it all civil, too.

Harry, Harry, Harry. Why must you resort to name calling? Is it because you have been found to be fallible and this knowledge has somehow destroyed what little self-esteem you had remaining and you can only strike out in anger and name calling?

How, exactly, did I shoot the white flag of surrender out of your hand? Did I impugn your integrity or obvious good standing with those that know little? Did I call you a name?

I could have called you a sheep shagging Kiwi, but I haven't. I am not certain you are a Kiwi so I am refraining from getting into that area. I consider myself above that.

A little more self restraint on your part seems to be called for.

PS: I Googled this for you:

im⋅pugn  /ɪmˈpyun/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-pyoon] Show IPA

Use impugn in a Sentence

See web results for impugn

See images of impugn–verb (used with object)

1. to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.

2. Archaic. to assail (a person) by words or arguments; vilify.

3. Obsolete. to attack (a person) physically.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:

1325–75; ME impugnen < MF impugner < L impugnāre to attack, equiv. to im- im- 1 + pugnāre to fight, deriv. of pugnus fist; see pugnacious

I am only here to help.

Just when I thought the tone of our little corner of the forum was improving. Oh, well.

I couldn't resist clicking "read this post" on that one since it seemed to be a direct response.

Yes, it has degenerated. I waved the white flag to Chucky and he decided to shoot it out of my hand. As for Maccaroni....I still can't get over his admission of his proclivity to rape school boys, so every time he aggravates, I respond. I don't abide by child rapists, so he gets on my nerves.

I would have preferred to keep it all civil, too.

Harry, Harry, Harry. Why must you resort to name calling? Is it because you have been found to be fallible and this knowledge has somehow destroyed what little self-esteem you had remaining and you can only strike out in anger and name calling?

How, exactly, did I shoot the white flag of surrender out of your hand? Did I impugn your integrity or obvious good standing with those that know little? Did I call you a name?

I could have called you a sheep shagging Kiwi, but I haven't. I am not certain you are a Kiwi so I am refraining from getting into that area. I consider myself above that.

A little more self restraint on your part seems to be called for.

PS: I Googled this for you:

im⋅pugn  /ɪmˈpyun/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-pyoon] Show IPA

Use impugn in a Sentence

See web results for impugn

See images of impugn–verb (used with object)

1. to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.

2. Archaic. to assail (a person) by words or arguments; vilify.

3. Obsolete. to attack (a person) physically.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:

1325–75; ME impugnen < MF impugner < L impugnāre to attack, equiv. to im- im- 1 + pugnāre to fight, deriv. of pugnus fist; see pugnacious

I am only here to help.

Again you refer to my use of "Chucky" as "name-calling". Again I point out that it is hardly "name-calling" and certainly not derogatory. If you really consider yourself "above that", why do you respond in kind to "Harry"?

I lowered the tone of our discourse, and I apologised and refrained thereafter.

You then brought the antagonism back with your peurile gaffawing emoticon instead of actually saying something.

Laugh in someone's face, expect to get a slap.

I am sure you do not honestly think that I needed the definition of "impugn"....therefore I conclude that you initially googled the word to correct your own ignorance, and decided to try to make a slight towards me since you had the information at hand and it was novel to you. You should not judge others by your self. We do not all have such a limited vocabulary.

Again you refer to my use of "Chucky" as "name-calling". Again I point out that it is hardly "name-calling" and certainly not derogatory. If you really consider yourself "above that", why do you respond in kind to "Harry"?

I lowered the tone of our discourse, and I apologised and refrained thereafter.

You then brought the antagonism back with your peurile gaffawing emoticon instead of actually saying something.

Laugh in someone's face, expect to get a slap.

I am sure you do not honestly think that I needed the definition of "impugn"....therefore I conclude that you initially googled the word to correct your own ignorance, and decided to try to make a slight towards me since you had the information at hand and it was novel to you. You should not judge others by your self. We do not all have such a limited vocabulary.

Er...um...by the way, both the words "peurile" and "gaffawing" are just a teensy bit wrong.

I believe the words you are looking for are spelled "puerile guffawing".

Do you also think people with such a vast vocabulary should be able to correctly spell their words?

Have I earned another slap?

PS: No emoticons were injured in the making of this post.

Again you refer to my use of "Chucky" as "name-calling". Again I point out that it is hardly "name-calling" and certainly not derogatory. If you really consider yourself "above that", why do you respond in kind to "Harry"?

I lowered the tone of our discourse, and I apologised and refrained thereafter.

You then brought the antagonism back with your peurile gaffawing emoticon instead of actually saying something.

Laugh in someone's face, expect to get a slap.

I am sure you do not honestly think that I needed the definition of "impugn"....therefore I conclude that you initially googled the word to correct your own ignorance, and decided to try to make a slight towards me since you had the information at hand and it was novel to you. You should not judge others by your self. We do not all have such a limited vocabulary.

Er...um...by the way, both the words "peurile" and "gaffawing" are just a teensy bit wrong.

I believe the words you are looking for are spelled "puerile guffawing".

Do you also think people with such a vast vocabulary should be able to correctly spell their words?

PS: No emoticons were injured in the making of this post.

Again, the only factual things you can pull me up on are spelling. It really is sad that you are arguing for the US but your only arguments are with your detractor's spelling.

Do you claim that dyslexics will have a small vocabulary or are unintelligent?

Again you refer to my use of "Chucky" as "name-calling". Again I point out that it is hardly "name-calling" and certainly not derogatory. If you really consider yourself "above that", why do you respond in kind to "Harry"?

I lowered the tone of our discourse, and I apologised and refrained thereafter.

You then brought the antagonism back with your peurile gaffawing emoticon instead of actually saying something.

Laugh in someone's face, expect to get a slap.

I am sure you do not honestly think that I needed the definition of "impugn"....therefore I conclude that you initially googled the word to correct your own ignorance, and decided to try to make a slight towards me since you had the information at hand and it was novel to you. You should not judge others by your self. We do not all have such a limited vocabulary.

Er...um...by the way, both the words "peurile" and "gaffawing" are just a teensy bit wrong.

I believe the words you are looking for are spelled "puerile guffawing".

Do you also think people with such a vast vocabulary should be able to correctly spell their words?

PS: No emoticons were injured in the making of this post.

Again, the only factual things you can pull me up on are spelling. It really is sad that you are arguing for the US but your only arguments are with your detractor's spelling.

Do you claim that dyslexics will have a small vocabulary or are unintelligent?

I'm still waiting on you to respond to my question about your waving of the white surrender flag and my shooting it out of your hand.

You should know, however, when you place yourself on a pedestal claiming superior knowledge, you had better not make some silly mistake. It WILL be pointed out to you, if for no other reason than to deflate your oversized ego.

I do not claim dyslexics possess either a limited vocabulary or are not intelligent. What does that question have to do with the current discussion?

You really should try and concentrate on a single subject with each post. Your mind tends to ramble around.

I'm still waiting on you to respond to my question about your waving of the white surrender flag and my shooting it out of your hand.

I waived a white flag of truce last week and got it shot out of my hand by Harcourt. Of course, he had just put me on his ignore list and didn't know what I was posting (I assume he didn't anyway).

Again, the only factual things you can pull me up on are spelling.

Your posts are full of wacky socialist stereotypes and stream of consciousness insights that make sense to no one but you and you do not even bother to try to explain them. You tell the reader to figure them out. We are niot mind readers and there are few actual facts to dispute.

If you really have dyslexia, you should understand that other than an irrational hatred for the U.S. and Israel and a sympathetic shoulder for terrorists, most of what you are trying to say, does not compute.

what do those who speak the queens english call what is spoken down under such as in kiwi land, tazmania and ozzy ville?

Tasmania is not a seperate country.

where did i say that it is?

and what is the answer to the question?

Folks, no more calling each other rapists.

Folks, no more calling each other rapists.

I didn't call him a rapist as such, I merely pointed out his own confession to being one......perhaps you missed that post where he announced to the entire forum that he used to take his "pleasure" from school boys.

You have a habit of twisting the truth far, far from reality. Why don't you quote what he said, so that we can judge for ourselves.

i have to say tha a bit of banter can be fun but your constant name calling makes me think you must have been the school yard bitch that people like me used for our pleasure.

This is what you call twisting far from reality?

Folks, no more calling each other rapists.

Does that include not calling American troops in Afghanistan rapists?

i have to say tha a bit of banter can be fun but your constant name calling makes me think you must have been the school yard bitch that people like me used for our pleasure.

This is what you call twisting far from reality?

He is insulting you, not confessing to rape. The fact that you would hold this out as "evidence", proves that nothing you say can be believed - just another nut on the internet looking for attention and spewing falsehoods. Why am I not surprised?

i have to say tha a bit of banter can be fun but your constant name calling makes me think you must have been the school yard bitch that people like me used for our pleasure.

This is what you call twisting far from reality?

He is insulting you, not confessing to rape. The fact that you would hold this out as "evidence", proves that nothing you say can be believed - just another nut on the internet looking for attention and spewing falsehoods. Why am I not surprised?

Yeah he's trying to insult me, but in doing so has confessed to his perversion. You can try and spin it away from that, but it is quite clear.

You're trying to insult me too, but I can just laugh it off....for now.

Folks, no more calling each other rapists.

Does that include not calling American troops in Afghanistan rapists?

First off if you read back I believe the post said Iraq....

There is a big difference between forum members calling unsubstantiated names & factual news reporting.

One is fact the other is just name calling.

Four U.S. soldiers charged with rape and murder

To date & three years after the crime........only one of the four has gotten a 5 x life in prison sentence. It was a toss up for the jury between 5x life or a death sentence. The other thee got life.

Life for US soldier's Iraq crimes

Perhaps you should read this for some clarity of the event......

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/soldiers.court/index.html

Yeah he's trying to insult me, but in doing so has confessed to his perversion. You can try and spin it away from that, but it is quite clear.

You are not being honest. He has not confessed to anything other than screwing the "schoolyard bitch". Rape does not enter in to it.