Finn Again's Wake

[RedFury]

Funny The Frothing One should mention drunks and Tenet in the same post. For it appears that Tenet is a rather nasty, lying (?) drunk:

**A servant appeared with a bottle. Tenet knocked back some of the scotch. Then some more. They watched with concern. He drained half the bottle in a few minutes.
“They’re setting me up. The bastards are setting me up,” Tenet said, but “I am not going to take the hit.”

…

"According to one witness, he mocked the neoconservatives in the Bush administration and their alignment with the right wing of Israel’s political establishment, referring to them with exasperation as, “the Jews.”**

From here.

[FinnAgain]

Ah, more conspiracy nonsense from Red:

@RedFury

drunks and Tenet in the same post.

I never tire of having conspiracy addled racists get their panties in a twist because I catch them at their games and react in a non-polite manner . Do keep it up (while pretending that you’re not responding to me, naturally).

Oh and to remind you, in case you’re drunk again, your claim was that Tenet was one of the dastardly Jew Traitors in the government. Now you seem to be saying otherwise.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

@RedFury

Perhaps a “primer” on a “primer” of what the Neocon movement was (is) all about might be in order.

Let’s play “count the lies”

Titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” the paper contained the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the U.S. could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East.

Did the paper actually call for that?
Or is it a common lie used to slime some folks and allege that Israel controls American foreign policy. What did the paper actually say?

[

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

](Tokyoslot88: Situs Judi Online IDN POKER | Agen Poker Online Terpercaya)

What did it say about Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon?

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations
[…]
investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
[…]
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil
[…]
Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a “Brotherhood Agreement” in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the “supernote” — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect. ’

Okay, so a set of nested lies that embody the Conspiracy Theory that while the PNAC was advising Israel to stand on its own, it was really the seed for Jewish/Neocon domination of the US government in order to support Israel.

Nice.

[Malthus]

@RedFury

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Based on what he said in the interview he came off as quite rational to me.

The part where he accused Bibi of being the designer behind “world recolonization”? If he’d accused Bibi of being one of the Lizard People in disguise, it would make about as much sense.

It strikes me as excessively paranoid, even delusional. Bibi is the leader of a single political faction in a small country. He’s not a major world leader, he’s not a deep thinker, and he’s not even particularly charismatic or influential.

Perhaps a “primer” on a “primer” of what the Neocon movement was (is) all about might be in order. But I think that should be a whole new thread.

For now, I’ll just provide this quote:

In said context, perhaps you’re able to glimpse the importance and input Netanyahu has/had into the whole Neocon world-model? “Chief Architect”? It’s one man’s view – one that I neither endorse nor disclaim for as much as I have studied the Neocon movement, starting with PNAC way back in '01/'02, clarity is not their biggest asset. Meaning that it’s hard to say, precisely, what their organigram, top to bottom, looks like.

Again, this smacks of paranoia. I seriously doubt Bibi is all that influential even in Neocon circles, let alone busy designing plans for world conquest with them. Such an extraordinary claim would require serious proof, the accusation that the conspiracy is ‘unclear’ is not good enough.

You may do as you like of course. But I beg to differ.

Disclaimer: I don’t know this gentleman’s ideology nor agenda; I simply watched that interview and happened to agree with much of what he said. That’s as far as I go.

Looking him up on the 'net, he was formerly the leader of something called the “Marxist Revolutionary Communist League”. Now I know nothing of what that organization stood for, but when the fellow starts to talk about relatively minor world leaders designing “world recolonization”, I have my doubts that I would agree with it.

The search for justice and equality is a never-ending process. The fight is long, arduous and often futile. Does that we mean we should abandon all hopes of actually getting there one day?

I don’t think so.

I have extreme doubts as to whether the use of legal process to address political matters is really going to serve the cause of peace and justice (assuming it wasn’t pie-in-the-sky to begin with, which of course it is).

Mostly, such stuff is used these days purely symbolically and polemically. There is no interest in actual litigation; the purpose is publicity.

[ivn1188]

Jesus, fatties. Go home and jerk off to your Anti-Zionist Conspiracy Fantasy websites, instead of spewing your bullshit here. I can’t believe you haven’t been banned for trolling yet, given that your only method of argument isn’t allowed anywhere but the pit.

[FinnAgain]

@Malthus

In short, there appears less injustice in applying Turkish laws to Palestine, then in applying English laws in Ireland.

To say nothing of the original absurdity which I was challenging, that 90% of land was owned by the Palestinians. (A fiction Red has yet to address let alone retract) Much of the land was desert, in any case, which would have been classified as Waste Land, and thus not owned by anybody.
And in any case, there’s a significant difference between “group X should have owned the land if there hadn’t been 400 years of legal precedent” and “group X did own the land”. You’re being too charitable with spoke. He knows full well that there wasn’t a group of Palestinian land owners during any point in the last 1000 years who had their rights stripped by invaders, as the Irish did. That’s why he’s dodging it, not any fear that identifying such a point in history would take him 500 words rather than a paragraph or two.

And he still hasn’t identified what his real objections are. Private land ownership, state land ownership, Palestinian land ownership under Ottoman law, Palestinian land ownership under Ottoman law that had other Palestinians as their tenants? Were Palestinians who rented land to other Palestinians the same as British invaders, too?

For those reading along, a cursory knowledge of Ottoman land policy would help:

[

Different types of customary or legally sanctioned land tenure can be found, ranging from community to fully private. Until well into the twentieth century, group or clan organization prevailed over individual ownership. It has often been maintained that the Ottoman land code of 1858 never succeeded in the general registration of individual titles to land, because it was not compatible with communal village organization and because of the extent of marginal cultivation. The definition of cultivated land in marginal areas of the region is still an issue, and a “grey area” exists in which individuals try to obtain title to land through occasional, often ecologically harmful, cultivation of previous grazing land. The Ottoman code provided for the existence of the following types of tenure:

*Private land, mulk: right of full ownership and alienation, as well as right to the usufruct of the land.

*State land, miri: suitable for agricultural use where the ultimate owner is the state but the usufruct belongs, in most cases, to individuals. The codification of miri land in Ottoman times was often read as an attempt to centralize power against the large landlords and tribal groups by establishing individual rights for a large number of small individual cultivators.

*Public land, waqf: reserved and immobilized, for some public (e.g. charitable) purpose, and usually leased, as it was in the past.

*So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land, mawat: mainly used for grazing under common property regimes, and often a grey area with political undertones. Occasionally, individuals or tribal groups try to obtain title with varying results.
[…]
State land (miri) used for farming was often given in concession; it eventually became hereditary and was divided up according to Islamic inheritance laws: estates divided into individual lots paved the way for privatization. In general, occupation rights are inheritable both for the direct assignee and for the cultivating tenants, so that according to ‘Urf law, tenants may also transmit occupancy by sale and by inheritance. However, throughout history assigned land could in principle be confiscated and returned to the ruler (crown or state). Thus a certain margin of insecurity remained.
[…]
Much of the political struggle under way today is rooted in the control of land and water. Getting down to the technicalities of tenure relations with respect to land, trees or water on the basis of traditional law and of modern Jordanian, Egyptian and Israeli law would be a service for peace, irrespective of the final users.

Traditionally the same main types of land tenure existed in Palestine as in other countries in the region: privately owned land (mulk), community owned cropland – mainly musha with no written title – and finally state land. This last category could be uncultivated land (mawat) – used mainly for grazing under customary rights, but also for marginal cultivation with frequent fallow – mainly registered in the twentieth century as state land, or it could be miri land. Again, as elsewhere in the region, much cropland was miri, i.e. ultimately state-owned but privately operated and open to inheritance.

Warriner (1948), referring to the situation before partition, indicated a persisting tradition of musha land whereby arable land in a village was allotted equally to each inhabitant. Each household operated land in different parts of the village, with periodic reallotments of scattered strips and a high level of fragmentation of holdings. Musha land was not recognized under the Ottoman land laws, or in the subsequent legal systems, but it continues to exist today in much of the West Bank. Fully private land (mulk) is said to be a rarity, and is present mainly in or around urban areas. On the other hand, wakfs, mainly religious endowments, are common and continue to exist more or less undisturbed.

Current Israeli settlements in the West Bank mainly emerged on state land; therefore the major issue is what rights local people had and have on state domain, and how can they have a voice in decisions on its use.
[…]
The main legal channel for land requisition as unused state land is to be found in the 1858 Ottoman law. The essential part of the Ottoman land law was initially adopted by the British mandate legislation and later by the Jordanian legislation, and was therefore in vigour at the time of West Bank annexation in 1967. Lands under ultimate state ownership were defined as miri, cropland close to inhabited areas and suitable for agriculture, and mawat, land far away from villages, in principle empty unused land. In both cases, the legal status could be ambiguous. In the case of miri land, according to the Ottoman law anybody who operates the land for ten continuous years acquires rights of use, but if the land is not farmed for three years, it can be withdrawn and passed on to somebody else. According to a restrictive interpretation of the Ottoman law, it was thus possible to seize any miri land not farmed for three consecutive years, and miri land farmed for less than ten years, as well as much of the land defined as mawat.

](Land tenure policies in the Near East)

[RedFury]

Malthus,

Short on time ATM, but please read this Wiki article on the relation – and agendas – between Bibi and Obama’s Administration:

Second term as Prime Minister: 2009–present

And then compare it with what the gentleman in the interview said. Pretty close match if you ask me.

Which is my only point all along.

[RedFury]

Ownership of land in Palestine, Share of Palestinan Arabs and Jews as of April 1st, 1943, prepared by the British Mandate for the United Nations

Scan of original document. 94% of the land belonged to Palestinians & “others.”

Source: British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan

The End.

[E-Sabbath]

@ivan_astikov

The lands have been contested since the year dot. Arabs and Jews wont share the land peacefully, so the decision should be taken out of their hands by secular, more rational minds.

I’m just gonna quote this and stare at it a bit. Who would you suggest as ‘secular, more rational minds’, Ivan?

[FinnAgain]

@RedFury

Which is my only point all along.

Other than that you were going Jew Hunting for secret Traitor Jews and so drunk you included Tenet in your list.

@RedFury

Scan of original document. 94% of the land belonged to Palestinians & “others.”

Predictable. You don’t let the facts get in the way of your screed. (And funny, you gave us one cite that claimed 90% and another that is claiming 94%, obviously, you’re using quality cites here)
In any case, you really should stop and consider facts before advancing your partisan agenda, as I’ve already pointed out to you that “uncultivatable” land was not privately owned land.

Evidently you failed to even click through their own links. What are the British figures based on? “Village Statisitcs of 1945: A Classification of Land and Area ownership in Palestine” What did it actually posit was the land ownership of Palestinians? 48.5% Further, it does not identify what of that 48.5% (not the 90+ that you have invented) was Mulk. It does identify much of them as Mafruz and Masha.
Masha (or Musha, Masha’a, etc…) land was not land that granted title, as it did not have legal status under the Ottoman land codes. The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 (see, spoke could have even chosen a date if he knew wtf he was talking about) required individuals to hold title to lands. Musha lands, therefore, had no legal force under the governing body.

In any case, as always, it pays to go to a reliable site, and not “Palestine Remembered”.

[

The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. In practice, I am aware that the data on this page have been used to support various partisan claims. That is precisely the sort of abuse that this material is intended to fight. The major conclusion is “The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times” Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you.

](MidEast Web - Population of Palestine)

(That last sentence is talkin’ about you, Red ol’ buddy)

Population and Land Ownership prior to the UN Partition Resolution

An Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946 examined the status of Palestine. No official census figures were available, as no census had been conducted in Palestine in 1940, so all their surmises and figures are based on extrapolations and surmises. According to the report, at the end of 1946, About 1,220,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land was registered in the tax registers to Arab villages, to Arabs living on the land, or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. However, most of this land was not privately owned. The Arabs of Palestine had received much of their land in leases conditional upon cultivation or used land that was part of village commons. The partition borders were drawn to give the Jews a majority within the allotted area of the Jewish state, but the land conquered during the fighting included the populous Arab areas of the Galilee, as well as Arab towns such as Lod and Ramla. Greater Jerusalem, which was to be internationalized, included about 100,000 Jews and a larger number of Arabs.

So, yeah, you’re full of shit when you claim that not only was the 48.5% figure reliable (which it wasn’t), but that 90+ is accurate.

You’re simply a dishonest propagandist.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@ivan_astikov

Oh noes, wmfellows doesn’t want to be my friend either!
snuffle! sniff!

Nobody does. You’re an asshole.

[elucidator]

Oh, don’t be silly, of course assholes have friends! They even breed! Where did you think little baby lawyers came from, hmmm?

[RedFury]

@RedFury

…Patriots, off the top of my bald pate, such as Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, George Tenet, Eric Lynn, Douglas Feith, Lee Feinstein, David Axelrod, Elliot Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Rahm Emanuel, David Frum…ad infinitum…

Far be it for me to toot my own horn but…damn! I’m good. Got 11 out of 12 right off the top of my bald pate!
:::bows:::

[FinnAgain]

Yeah, in your random Traitor Jew Hunting, you managed to name some who were actually Jews. Of course, you’re still spouting racist nonsense whereby you go Jew Hunting and pretend that any Jew who has the nerve to disagree with you is a traitor.

Your racist fixation with Jew Hunting leads you to point to people like Rahm Emanuel as a Jew Traitor because, well… he’s a Jew and in politics and, well… evidently that’s enough for you.

[RedFury]

Far be it for FrothingFinn to be quoting from biased sites. Take Camera for instance:

**A Zionist hasbara (propaganda) body based in North America is trying to recruit “volunteers” whose main job is to distort the input of the internet’s most visited websites in Israel’s favor.

Propaganda efforts are reportedly focused on popular sites such as Wikipedia, the huge on-line encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone.

CAMERA, which calls itself a “committee for accuracy in Middle East reporting in America,” already has a team of dozens of paid Jewish propagandists who regularly and often scandalously distort basic data pertaining to such themes as Israeli apartheid, Zionism and its ideological similarity to Nazism, Israeli state terror and ill-treatment of Palestinians as well as other issues related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Recently CAMERA sent a circular to potential Zionist propagandists, asking them to help ensure a pro-Israeli bias in the internet.

“The idea behind Wikipedia is that if thousands of well-meaning and informed volunteers collaborate on an online encyclopedia, the result would be more accurate, up-to-date and inclusive than any print encyclopedia could possibly be.”

The circular went on: “CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors. All it takes to be an effective volunteer is a basic comfort level with computers. Call or email me, and I will train you on how to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor.”

Reputed for its notoriously mendacious and inaccurate input, CAMERA has consistently sought to exonerate the Israeli occupation forces of war crimes committed against innocent civilians especially in the Gaza Strip.

Acting as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Israeli occupation army, the group, relying on questionable and often concocted statements by Israeli army spokespersons, argued on many occasions that the widespread killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army occurred by mistake and that measures were often taken to minimize civilian casualties.**

From here. Likely equally biased the other way. Unfair is unfair, right?

Anyway, as he fits the profile for recruits to a T, here’s hoping The Frothing One is getting some pecuniary compensation for typing his fingertips to the bone.

He’s earned it. And then some.

[RedFury]

@FinnAgain

Yeah, in your random Traitor Jew Hunting, you managed to name some who were actually Jews. Of course, you’re still spouting racist nonsense whereby you go Jew Hunting and pretend that any Jew who has the nerve to disagree with you is a traitor.

Your racist fixation with Jew Hunting leads you to point to people like Rahm Emanuel as a Jew Traitor because, well… he’s a Jew and in politics and, well… evidently that’s enough for you.

I must confess, you got me there, Finnie. With apologies to Emanuel…

Far-rightists call Rahm Emanuel a traitor to the Jewish people

So tell us, do you think he is?

[FinnAgain]

Ahhh, the good ol’ ad hominem fallacy. CAMERA is bad, even though it’s factual and you can’t refute its facts, because you don’t like it. Brilliant refutation. You can show how any of their claims are factually inaccurate, any time now. Or rather, you can’t, so you post this idiocy.
And ~gasp!~ CAMERA tried to have people post to wikipedia, how awful, those traitorous scum. And part of how we know that they’re horribly biased is because they don’t think that Nazism is similar to Zionism or that Israel practices apartheid. :rolleyes: And of course, as you’re not a racist, you’re citing a source that claims that CAMERA is recruiting “Jewish” volunteers. Don’t you know that racists are supposed to refer to them as “Zionists” for maximum plausible deniability?

Truly Red, it should be rather frightening to you that you’re such a raging partisan that if someone states that the desire for Jews to have self determination isn’t like Nazism, you start seeing hidden conspiracies.

Speaking of how you’re unable to argue the actual facts, why don’t you finally point out what ‘war crimes’ were committed in Gaza, and cite the specific statutes that were violated? While you’re at it, please explain how even the Palestinian figures showed that civilian casualties were ridiculously low compared to valid military targets for a war being fought in a dense urban environment with combatants who wear no uniform and use human shields, and yet Israel was still doing disproportionate damage to civilians.

Or just go back to Jew Hunting and tell us of how traitorous Rahm Emanuel is. Nice dodge by the way, covering up your racism and all. Why don’t you tell us why you decided that Emanuel is a Jew Traitor other than the fact that he’s a Jew in politics. Do tell, I’m sure you’ve got a very good reason. That’s not racist.
You can elaborate any time now. (Or you can respond to me some more while pretending that you won’t do so)

[RedFury]

PS: re: “Traitor Jew Hunting” Is that a sport or a hobby? And if the former, will it feature in the London Olympics? 'cause if so, I’ll obviously need to train harder.

[FinnAgain]

You can explain any time now why you’re randomly slandering Jews in American government as traitors for no reason other than that they’re Jews. Besides the fact that you’re a racist, of course.

Unless you’d like to elaborate on why Emanuel is such a traitor and you didn’t just name him because you’re a racist and were busy listing every Jew in politics you could think of and accusing them all of being traitors?
Go for it.

[RedFury]

Guardian investigation uncovers evidence of alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza

Right. Enjoy your keyboard, Finn. My work here is done for the night.

Do try to get that Xanax prescription will ya’? I kind of worry you might bust an artery if you don’t.

Cheers.

[FinnAgain]

So no answer on what caused you to accuse Emanuel of treachery other than that he’s a Jew, and you’re a racist?
Didn’t think so.
Who’d have guessed that your MO would be to try to change the subject when caught. You’ve only done it, what, a half dozen times in the last few hours?

But, oh, you’ve got alleged evidence (or is that evidence of alleged stuff so hard to keep track). I notice that you still don’t quote the statutes that were supposedly violated. Funny, that. And your article claims that human shields were used, claims made after Hamas had time to influence them, and claim it’s backed up by IDF testimony that they then conveniently don’t quote. Go figure.
But you do help display the agenda of The Guardian and how they’re willing to twist facts to fit their agenda. Instead of the truth, which is that the Geneva Convention specifically allows valid military targets to be hit even if civilians are present “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”, they claim that it means that civilians can’t be in an area to dissuade people from shooting back at them.

Which of course makes it odd that you’re not complaining that Hamas committed war crimes, seeing as how they used all of Gaza as a bunch of human shields, but intellectual honesty isn’t exactly your strong suit. Speaking of which, still waiting on that non-racist reason why Emanuel is a traitor other than that he happens to be Jewish. Any time now Red, As you aren’t a racist, it should be easy to prove. I’m waiting.