• http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    ENDNOTE
    Above silence, the illuminating storms–dying storms– illuminate the silence above.
    The above sample is noteworthy as it is a ketek, a complex form of holy Vorin poem. The ketek not only reads the same forward and backward (al lowing for alteration of verb forms) but is also divisible into five distinct smaller sections, each of which makes a complete thought.

    The complete poem must form a sentence that is grammatically correct and (theoretically) poignant in meaning. Because of the difficulty in constructing a ketek, the structure was once considered the highest and most impressive form of all Vorin poetry -Brandon Sanderson’s Way of Kings


    This is why sentence fragments with no rhyme, reason, or thesis is such a hardship on all of us here. There is so much greater literature out there for man to dine on stale bread alone.

    This is the genius of Brandon Sanderson by the by. He also has a great flair for, if he was Japanese, kanji puns. Since he is English language based, it would be pun pairs like Hamlet being a baby pig.

  • SADIE

    Sadie does :)
     
     
    Charles Martel (post #91)
     
    Not Yanks, they just enjoy yanking.

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, I’m going to pass on this splendid opportunity. Engaging Zach is like being a knife that has been presented with a great sharpening surface. Eventually, as you reach optimum sharpness, you realize that the thing you honed yourself on just can’t give you anything more.

    “Conversing” with Zach is like talking to a dog whose bark isn’t “Arf! Arf!,” it’s “Wiki! Wiki!” or “Dukakis! Dukakis!” You may have some affection for the beast, but you sigh because you know the damned thing is never going to advance beyond its present mental limitations.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Ah, Charles M…I gave you the gift of (100) and you declined.

  • Charles Martel

    My bad, Danny, I thought you were gifting me with an open shot at Zach after you had so ably softened him up.

    Truth is, thanks to you, Mike Devx and Ymarsakar, they happen so often now that they’ve become a lot like watching Oprah trot her latest weight loss. I promise to be more aware next time we close in on a 100 mark.

  • SADIE

    Danny, Charles is endowed with so many gifts and the Israeli in me, just seized the moment. I couldn’t have z/code pink/wiki mastermind believing he/it/they had a chance. We would run the risk of dividing contiguous comments and good Lawd, the next thing you know there would be a suggested resolution, UN troops and condemnations.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Old Marty McFryed here is going to go back into the past with his Delorean time machine and remake history so he can get the HUNDRED.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    YmarsakarWhen I look on a Earth satellite map, I don’t see forts.

    http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/the-west-bank-archipelago/
    Ymarsakar:You have no idea whether it was a land grab or not, Z.

    Not an argument. Not even a clearly stated position.

    Charles Martel: I thought Israel owns the West Bank?

    Most of the world, including the majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank, disagree.

    Ymarsakar: I think Z read that in some Howard Zinn history book. 

    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=26

    YmarsakarPeople aren’t entitled to rule over lands they can’t protect or serve.

    People have the right to self-determination.

    Danny Lemieux: There was the issue of newly independent Texas, which Mexico continued to threaten and in fact threatened to invade. 

    Yes, the Mexicans tried to outlaw slavery. If the issue was the protection of Texas, it wouldn’t have required signing over most of Mexican territory.

    Danny Lemieux: Finally, Mexico may not have liked the price, but it accepted the terms.  

    They didn’t have a choice, of course. The U.S. occupied Mexico City. 

    Mike Devx: To wit, wars of aggression are *never* justified. I made my case that the Palestinians are engaging in a war of aggression.

    They sincerely believe they have legitimate territorial grievances. Based on the evidence, they do. Most of the world agrees. In particular, Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and build walls and settlements there.

    Mike DevxI then noted that no  country or force that engages in a war of aggression says it is just acting aggressively, warring because it wants to.

    Of course. Outlawing aggressive war means people have to justify their wars. Indeed, that’s why most wars since WWII have been either internal strife, or limited proxy wars posing as internal strife. When Saddam violated this basic international principle with the invasion of Kuwait, the entire world, including Arab nations, rose up against him. 


  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Mike Devx: That hardly justifies your closing argument: You’re not making much sense.

    It wasn’t an argument. Presumably, you think you’re making sense, so you can read it as a request for clarification. Let’s look again.

    Mike Devx: As I said earlier – perhaps in another thread – commenters supporting a position on the left will use a First Principle, and then immediately violate it in certain cases by offering up sudden “complexities” and excuses and explanations – that negate the very argument of a First Principle itself.

    Zachriel: The Palestinians believe they have legitimate territorial grievances, hence it’s not a war of aggression. You’re not making much sense.

    The Palestinians think they have been wrongly ejected from their own land. Certainly, for thousands, this is true. Many Palestinians were forced out in 1948, never to be allowed to return. Since the 1967 war, Israel has occupied the West Bank. Occupation is inherently unstable and undemocratic, and is unsustainable over the long run. Israel has attempted to settle the West Bank, setting up a series of walls that protect the settlements, with the effect of dividing up long-standing Palestinian communities. The Palestinians have legitimate territorial grievances. 

    Israel is a U.N. recognized nation within the 1967 borders. The radicals who attempt to overthrow Israel can be considered to be making aggressive war. Israel is attempting to use their military and industrial might to coopt Palestinian lands in the West Bank. This can be considered aggression, too.

    However, for people to want to return to their homes is not aggression. For Palestinians to fight for a Palestinian state, or to resist the occupation in the West Bank is not aggression. They are the indigenous people there.  

    Your point seems to be that the Palestinians are the aggressors, have no legitimate grievances, and others have stated that the West Bank belongs to Israel anyway. Of course, that would only work if you either expel millions of Palestinians, or refuse them their democratic rights within Israel. 

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel
  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Ymarsakar:You have no idea whether it was a land grab or not, Z.
    Not an argument. Not even a clearly stated position.


    Charles Martel: I thought Israel owns the West Bank?
     
    Most of the world, including the majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank, disagree.


    YmarsakarI think Z read that in some Howard Zinn history book.

    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=26

    Ymarsakar: People aren’t entitled to rule over lands they can’t protect or serve.
    People have the right to self-determination.
    Danny Lemieux: There was the issue of newly independent Texas, which Mexico continued to threaten and in fact threatened to invade.
    Yes, the Mexicans tried to outlaw slavery. If the issue was the protection of Texas, it wouldn’t have required signing over most of Mexican territory.


    Danny Lemieux: Finally, Mexico may not have liked the price, but it accepted the terms.

    They didn’t have a choice, of course. The U.S. occupied Mexico City.
    Mike DevxTo wit, wars of aggression are *never* justified. I made my case that the Palestinians are engaging in a war of aggression.

    They sincerely believe they have legitimate territorial grievances. Based on the evidence, they do. Most of the world agrees. In particular, Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and build walls and settlements there.

    Mike DevxI then noted that no  country or force that engages in a war of aggression says it is just acting aggressively, warring because it wants to.
    Of course. Outlawing aggressive war means people have to justify their wars. Indeed, that’s why most wars since WWII have been either internal strife, or limited proxy wars posing as internal strife. When Saddam violated this basic international principle with the invasion of Kuwait, the entire world, including Arab nations, rose up against him.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    YmarsakarWhen I look on a Earth satellite map, I don’t see forts.
    http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel
  • Danny Lemieux

    Danny Lemieux: There was the issue of newly independent Texas, which Mexico continued to threaten and in fact threatened to invade.
    Z: Yes, the Mexicans tried to outlaw slavery. If the issue was the protection of Texas, it wouldn’t have required signing over most of Mexican territory.

    Huh? Slavery? The Mexicans were actively practicing (de facto if not de jure) slavery with indigenous Indian tribes…give me a break! Also, it was Mexico that was the original aggressor with Texas. The U.S. stepped in. Mexico lost. Too bad! Actions have consequences. For the Mexicans/Spanish included in the new U.S. territories, it was probably the best thing that happened to them, even if the U.S. did claim the territories with the relatively clean government, good highway system, shopping malls, 1st-world economy, etc.

    Mike Devx: To wit, wars of aggression are *never* justified. I made my case that the Palestinians are engaging in a war of aggression.
    Z: They sincerely believe they have legitimate territorial grievances. Based on the evidence, they do. Most of the world agrees. In particular, Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and build walls and settlements there.

    The Palestinian “territorial grievances” don’t matter squat. Fact is, they have been the aggressors against the Jews since before 1900 when many Palestinians themselves were new to the area. During WWII, when it was the British Mandate, the Palestinians aligned themselves with Hitler and his genocidal policies agains the Jews. This isn’t about territory and human rights (to claim that anything emanating from the Palestinians can in any way be an issue of human rights is ludicrous – have you followed the human rights that Palestinians inflict upon each other, by any chance?). Finally, there are people all over the world with territorial grievances (Irish, Basques, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, etc.). When they start blowing up children and women in a strategy of terror or voicing genocidal aims, they lose legitimacy. But not with you, apparently.

    When you commit aggression against others like the Palestinians have and lose, there are consequences. As with Mexico in the Mexican-American War. Too bad!

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    People have the right to self-determination.

    Slavery isn’t self-determination. 

    When I say Z reads things in a Howard Zinn history book, I don’t mean that he just recounts some factual data wrong about a momentous historical event. I’m referring to how Zinn interprets, incorrectly, such events for political gain. It may be incorrect to boot for the facts on the ground, but that’s not required.

    History is only one part fact and most of the other parts are based upon human interpretations.

    Given Z’s evidence here, how good is Z at interpreting things he never experienced?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    So Z considers the wall the Israelis have to be a fort.

    Forts are used to defend territory. So what’s the justification for the war of aggression the Palestinians are waging to conquer other people’s territory?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Danny, SoldierMom wrote an account of the War of Independence as waged by Texas and how the Alamo played its part in Texas history.

    The historical setting in question is very interesting since Texas was not the US and after they won their war, joined the US of their own free will.

    That’s how the US became powerful. People joined of their own free will to form a greater union. Regardless of how many disagreed in the process.

    I think it is patently ridiculous for the Spanish, the Mexicans, or the Palestinians to start claiming that they deserve territory and the lives of the people on it, just because. Just because what? They can’t defend that territory if it was invaded. They can’t provide services to that territory or its people. When the people cry out for justice, they cannot and will not provide relief. Just how the hell do such wannabe totalitarians “deserve” territory there?

  • Danny Lemieux

    Z gets in a huff: “People have the right to self-determination.”
    Ymarsaker hits the nail on the head: “Slavery isn’t self-determination.”

    Why is it that people on the Left always consider Leftwing dictatorships (Cuba, Gaza, Soviet Union, East Germany etc.) as legitimate expressions of “self determination”?

    Whoops….rhetorical question! Of course we know why!

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Danny Lemieux: Huh? Slavery?

    Not only did Mexico outlaw slavery, but slavery was the central political issue in the U.S. Congress, with abolitionists, such as John Quincy Adams, opposing the war on the grounds that it was an attempt to expand slavery west. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: Also, it was Mexico that was the original aggressor with Texas. The U.S. stepped in.

    “Show me the spot… Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion.”
     
    Danny Lemieux: Actions have consequences.

    Yes, the U.S. invaded and took what they wanted. 
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Freedom is slavery, as it was once said, Danny.
    Danny Lemieux: Actions have consequences.
    Yes, the U.S. invaded and took what they wanted.

    Are you trying to stand on your moral high horse and lecture people about what the US should or shouldn’t have done?
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Btw, given Z’s love of Obama like policies, I bring up the question because Z has loved his state authoritarians invading our peace and taking what they want. So when Z wants to start lecturing us about what the US did or didn’t do, let’s be very clear about just what exactly is going on.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Danny Lemieux: The Palestinian “territorial grievances” don’t matter squat.

    Well, at least you are straightforward.

    But for most people, self-determination is a fundamental principle of modern governance. Palestinian grievances matter to the Palestinians. And it matters to anyone who wants to see a just resolution of the conflict. All-in-all, it seems as if justice is not a consideration. 

    Since WWII, nations have found that justice is an essential principle, and nations that step far outside acceptable behavior may be subject to retribution by the other nations. As powerful as the U.S. or Soviet Union may have been, the support of other nations was still essential. Consider the role of the U.N. during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
     
    Danny Lemieux: Finally, there are people all over the world with territorial grievances (Irish, Basques, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, etc.).

    Many groups, including the Israelis, have had links to terrorism. The actions of radicals doesn’t undo the right of a people to self-determination. Even the Germans and Japanese have that right. Your dictum actually undercuts moderates and empowers radicals. 
     
    Ymarsakar: So what’s the justification for the war of aggression the Palestinians are waging to conquer other people’s territory?

    You must have missed or simply ignored our previous comments on the fragmentation of Palestinians territory. 
     
    Ymarsakar: They can’t defend that territory if it was invaded.

    By that criteron, wars of conquest by the Germans was not a crime. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: Why is it that people on the Left always consider Leftwing dictatorships (Cuba, Gaza, Soviet Union, East Germany etc.) as legitimate expressions of “self determination”?

    Don’t know who these “people on the Left” are. (Perhaps being specific would be helpful, instead of broad generalizations.) However, Cuba is a homegrown authoritarian regime. Gaza is essentially a prison. The Soviet Union was the last empire. Germany was divided by WWII, a buffer between the superpowers.
     

  • SADIE

    Are you trying to stand on your moral high horse and lecture people about what the US should or shouldn’t have done?

     
    It’s the very reason why the z-group exists. It doesn’t matter if anyone counters the discussion with facts, reasoning or reality on the ground – America or Israel will always be wrong. They just practice a form of verbal jihad – no threats, but the constant pounding of the same old same old, never moving forward and always stuck in their muddled mentality. So very very 7th century.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    But for most people, self-determination is a fundamental principle of modern governance.

    Self-determination isn’t the same as slavery. Or, for that matter, being entitled to own other people’s land and control their lives.

    You keep mistaking one for the other, Z. Why is that.

    Wars of conquest are not legal trials. War is not the same as a legal system nor does a legal system have jurisdiction over a war. This fantasy land where words can create military realities, is too much like a Leftist cult fanatic, Z. It’s not realistic.

    Nuremburg would never have existed if the allies had lost. Thus, de facto, those war crime trials only exist because the victors won the war. If Germany had won their war, they would have had ‘war crimes tribunals’ as well.

    What is with this reality of A causes B, that you don’t get, Z. It’s like you can’t connect the dots between the logical connection between event A and consequence C. Like you’re thinking in sentence fragments, not just writing them. Like you have a whole theory of knowledge in the form of paragraphs lacking a thesis, subject, or even conclusion.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Sadie, he never answers such questions because he’s more afraid of the answers than anyone else.

  • Charles Martel

    Wow, Zach has provided some of the most egregious abuses of language I’ve ever seen here:

    “The Palestinians think they have been wrongly ejected from their own land. Certainly, for thousands, this is true.”

    Notice the sly shift from thinking something happened it it now being true. Classic misdirection.

    “Since the 1967 war, Israel has occupied the West Bank.”

    No, since 1967 Israel has owned the West Bank by right of conquest in a defensive war. The so-called “world community” doesn’t get to vote on it. Zach has utterly failed to refute the defensive nature of that conflict. Again, the sly change in terms is designed to misdirect. 

    “Occupation is inherently unstable and undemocratic, and is unsustainable over the long run.”

    No proof; pure assertion. Even if Zach could prove it—highly unlikely—what alternative would he suggest Israel try?

    “Israel has attempted to settle the West Bank, setting up a series of walls that protect the settlements.” 

    What are the walls designed to protect the settlers from? 
    “Israel is a U.N. recognized nation within the 1967 borders.

    Which 1967 borders? Nice evasion! (So the key to legitimate existence is recognition by a world body composed mostly of dictators, kleptomaniacs and Jew haters. This is what passes for moral seriousness in Zachdom?)


    “The radicals who attempt to overthrow Israel can be considered to be making aggressive war.”

    Oh, it’s only radicals. No overwhelming popular support for the destruction of Israel from the poor, oppressed Palestinian people themselves?

    “Israel is attempting to use their military and industrial might to coopt Palestinian lands in the West Bank. This can be considered aggression, too.”

    Too clever by half. The West Bank never belong to the Palestinians, it belonged to the sovereign state of Jordan, which was forced to cede the land after Israel gave it some whup ass in 1967. Also, “since this can be considered aggression,” perhaps Zach could tell us if he’s among that august group that considers it so.”
    “However, for people to want to return to their homes is not aggression. For Palestinians to fight for a Palestinian state, or to resist the occupation in the West Bank is not aggression. They are the indigenous people there.”

    Strawman—Nobody is arguing that a desire constitutes aggression. Also, notice the clever evasion of how Palestinians fight and resist—blowing up school children, murdering families in their beds, directing rocket attacks on Israel proper. Nope, not aggressive at all! As far as the indigenous people argument, others here have kicked that sorry piece of nonsense to pieces time and again. Perhaps Zach can retire the assertion?

  • SADIE

    Ymar – Y bother. They wouldn’t hear the answers, because they do not listen.  Maybe a proctologist and a crow bar are what’s needed ;)
     
     

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    SADIE: It doesn’t matter if anyone counters the discussion with facts, reasoning or reality on the ground …

    You might try it sometime. 
     
    SADIE: – America or Israel will always be wrong.

    That is not the case, and we’ve even listed many of the things that they have done right, such as America’s role in fighting fascism, or Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense. However, we do object to the claim that they are never wrong. It’s not hard to understand that the U.S., for instance, saw an opportunity to take land from Mexico, and took it. It often happens when there is such a disparity in power. What’s wrong is pretending it didn’t happen.
     
    So very very 7th century.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Ymarsakar: Self-determination isn’t the same as slavery.

    That’s right. 
     
    Ymarsakar: Wars of conquest are not legal trials.

    Should the Nazis have been tried for crimes against peace, or should they have just been hanged as losers? What was all that hurumphing about at Nuremberg? 
     
    Ymarsakar: If Germany had won their war, they would have had ‘war crimes tribunals’ as well.
     
    No doubt. Would such trials have been just? Or isn’t justice a consideration? 
     

     

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Zachriel: The Palestinians think they have been wrongly ejected from their own land. Certainly, for thousands, this is true.

    Charles Martel: Notice the sly shift from thinking something happened it it now being true. Classic misdirection.

    It’s not misdirection, but two related facts. 
     
    Charles Martel: No, since 1967 Israel has owned the West Bank by right of conquest in a defensive war.

    Well, that seems to be the consensus on this board, but it contrary to international law. Israel can occupy the territory only as required for security, but the people retain a right to self-determination. In any case, the situation is inherently unstable because people will insist on their right for a say in their own affairs.  
     
    Charles Martel: what alternative would he suggest Israel try?

    The conflict will eventually be resolved by negotiation. Many of the Israeli settlers will be forced to leave the West Bank, though some communities will remain near the 1967 borders. 
     
    Charles Martel: What are the walls designed to protect the settlers from? 
     
    From Palestinian attacks. Israel builds a community on a hilltop, fortifies it with a wall. This results in a fragmentation of existing communities, and makes a negotiated settlement much harder. It empowers the radicals and undercuts the moderates. According to your previous statement, it is Israeli land, and the Palestinians have no say in the matter. 
     
    Charles Martel: Also, notice the clever evasion of how Palestinians fight and resist—blowing up school children, murdering families in their beds, directing rocket attacks on Israel proper.

    Not all Palestinians are terrorists, but the vast majority reject continued occupation. 
     

  • SADIE

    You might try it sometime.
     
    To be clear, you are not worthy…
     
    However, we do object to the claim that they are never wrong.


    …. nor have you ever identified yourself, although you have identified America as ‘they‘. No. What’s wrong is pretending you really have a vested interest in America’s interests when you’re here only to serve your own needs to pontificate and use this blog, rather than one of your own to do so.

     

  • Charles Martel

    Please tell us, plainly, Zach, what you (not Wiki) think would be the demands and concessions that both sides would make that in your opinion (not Wiki’s), if negotiated over and agreed to, would lead to a lasting peace. In other words, instead of waving vaguely in the direction of “will have to be negotiated,” offer an actual scenario and suggestions.

    I’m dying to see you venture an opinion that is not written in Evasionese and depends on your own thought processes, not the thoughts of others.

    Feel up to it? Everybody here is been waiting for you to come out of hiding for months.

  • Charles Martel

    SADIE, Zach’s incorrect use of they indicates an unfamiliarity with American English. Either that or an overeliance on the often badly edited pieces he expropriates on Wiki. When you are hurriedly mining material from there, you don’t always have time to refine. Thus you inadvertently pick up an original writer’s ungrammatical prose style.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I find it interesting that Z keeps returning time and time again to Nuremberg Trials, as if there is an unrequited personal wound there.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles Martel: In other words, instead of waving vaguely in the direction of “will have to be negotiated,” offer an actual scenario and suggestions. 

    Any final deal will be a two-state solution with mutually recognized borders. Israel will need security guarantees, while Palestinians will require some compensation in exchange for giving up the right of return. The problem is in the details. Some Israeli settlements will have to be dismantled, but the Palestinians will have to accede to others. Israel will insist upon the whole of Jerusalem, but some accommodation for Muslim sentiments will be required. Whatever the final agreement, the sooner it is accomplished, the better it is for all the parties, excepting those that have no wish for reasonable compromise; Israelis who insist upon annexing the entire West Bank, and Palestinians who insist upon all of Palestine. 
     

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Danny Lemieux: I find it interesting that Z keeps returning time and time again to Nuremberg Trials, as if there is an unrequited personal wound there.

    The Principles of Nuremberg, the Geneva Convention and the Charter of the United Nations form the basis of international law. In particular, aggressive wars are outlawed and borders existing at the end of WWII were considered sovereign, and that any border dispute should be resolved through negotiation. This left a number of problems, though, including the partition of Germany, Korea and Vietnam, which led to limited conflicts, but larger clashes were largely avoided. 

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Sadie, I will don the mantle of Wiki and save the world with my World Justice Lea**e!!!!